German Automakers Working On Hydrogen Fuel Cell Tech (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: For the past several years, Japan has been trying to encourage development of hydrogen fuel cell technology for cars. Now it seems some German manufacturers are getting interested as well. "Audi used last week's North American International Auto Show in Detroit to debut its h-tron Quattro fuel cell SUV concept, and the UK's Autocar is reporting that Mercedes-Benz has green-lit for production a fuel cell version of its GLC SUV." The Audi vehicle has a range of roughly 600km. BMW has been working on this problem too: "For quite a while, the company was experimenting with internal combustion engines that used H2 instead of the traditional hydrocarbon fuel. More recently, it showed us an i8 and 5 Series powered by fuel cells, although neither is set for production."

Comments

Wow! Germans?

[110010001000]

Just don't mention the War...

Re:Wow! Germans?

[fruviad]

Just be sure to test the fuel cells using ONLY the German tests. Independent tests may show different results.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't mention the War...

If they had hydrogen fuel cells in their tiger tanks, maybe the krauts would have won the war.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Germans have a well-deserved reputation for being extremely fastidious with tests. The on-site technical test performed by TÜV when Top Gear went to Germany springs to mind.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[110010001000]

Totally. VW is a leader in the field of being fastidious with tests. Wait, does "fastidious" mean "corrupt"?

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

AHEM. im afraid you said that aloud while they were here. very awkward, try not to sieg heil them now.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. VW is known for its high build quality and tight manufacturing tolerances, so I presume the must indeed be quite fastidious in their tests. You can see some of it in this film. However, I don't think they do anything fundamentally different to other manufacturers in that regard.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[110010001000]

Oh totally. Someone hasn't been paying attention to the news. That someone is you.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[DrYak]

Oh totally. Someone hasn't been paying attention to the news. That someone is you.

Let me emphasis a part of the (anonymous) parent poster's post:

However, I don't think they do anything fundamentally different to other manufacturers in that regard.

Someone hasn't been paying attention to the reality (and to the various follow ups of the news you're mentioning). And *that* someone is *you*.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[110010001000]

So because "everyone does it", that makes them "high quality" and "fastidious"? Wow. What are you, 12? VW execs are a bunch of corrupt German liars who need to be thrown in jail.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

So because "everyone does it", that makes them "high quality" and "fastidious"?

I don't think that is what GP or the AC above claimed or suggested.

VW execs are a bunch of corrupt German liars who need to be thrown in jail.

Investigations are ongoing. So far, it seems that the executives where not aware of any wrongdoing. The main suspects are (according to the rumour mill) the previous head of engine development and the lead engineer ECU development engineer. They will likely go to jail if the Brunswick public prosecution office can find enough evidence that they actually broke the law.

However, I don't really see what the fact that VW was the first company getting caught cheating with NOx emissions in diesels has to do with fastidiousness, German or otherwise. Most of the other manufacturers that are under suspicion are not German.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't me disagreeing with your overall sentiment, but your argument makes no sense. You are aware that "corrupt German liars" and "fastidious and high quality" are in no way related. They don't correlate, or negatively correlate. They lied about their smog numbers. They could still be fastidious about their tests and knew exactly how far off they were when they chose to lie about them. And as such, their product could still be very high quality by the measures of reliability and longevity (the measure most use when talking about quality) while spewing out more NOx then it should.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[110010001000]

Right. The executives were not aware. Give me a break. The point is that Germans aren't "fastidious" or "high quality". They just turned out to be cheating all along.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[110010001000]

Their product isn't high quality. It is a polluting mess.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally. VW is a leader in the field of being fastidious with tests. Wait, does "fastidious" mean "corrupt"?

When you can engineer a better car than VW engineers, your opinion might matter.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there will be a special version of the Hydrogen SUV for the North American that will will have all structural elements filled with thermite and the coolant rocket fuel.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. The executives were not aware. Give me a break.

Do you really think executives in a company with over 600 000 employees inspect every line of code personally?

The point is that Germans aren't "fastidious" or "high quality". They just turned out to be cheating all along.

I don't think one instance of a few Germans cheating warrants any such claim.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

VW makes more than one product, many in fact. Their products are generally known for high quality and durability. There is not generally much difference in pollution produced by different car brands (see e.g. this report), but VW is often one of the first that ships engines meeting new Euro norms.

They have been under some negative attention for starting the diesel NOx scandal, but the actual on-road emissions are no worse than similar cars from other manufacturers, even including cars that have not yet found to be gaming the emission tests.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[HornWumpus]

VWs are known to be maintenance nightmares. They are a fucking mess.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[HornWumpus]

Do you know the first step in replacing the brake master cylinder in a new 'bug'?

Remove the front bumper. Seriously. Terrible cars designed to sell parts. Even Ford makes better cars.

Re:Wow! Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the atom bomb, the "krauts" had the best technology in the war and could easily have won had they had competent strategists. They started their military build up a decade before WWII started and also had combat experienced troops from fighting in the Spanish Civil war. Don't forget also that they were the first country to best the Kármán line years before the Soviets or Americans. And even when they did it, they were using German technology.

Re: Wow! Germans?

[Type44Q]

I'm thinking you might have a limited grasp of your own language, 'cause you clearly don't entirely understand what you're even responding to...

Havent they been working on it for a while now?

[Osgeld]

Audi:
2004 - Audi A2H2-hybrid vehicle
2009 - Audi Q5-FCEV[1]
2014 - Audi A7 h-tron quattro

BMW:
2010 - BMW 1 Series Fuel-cell hybrid electric[2]
2012 - BMW_i8 fuel-cell prototype[3][4]
2015 - BMW 5-Series Grand Turismo fuel-cell prototype[5]

Daimler:
3 Mercedes-Benz F-Cells completed a 125-day around the world drive in 2011
1994 - Mercedes-Benz NECAR 1
1996 - Mercedes-Benz NECAR 2
1997 - Mercedes-Benz NECAR 3
1999 - Mercedes-Benz NECAR 4
2000 - Mercedes-Benz NECAR 5
2002 - Mercedes-Benz F-Cell based on the Mercedes-Benz A-Class
2005 - Mercedes-Benz F600 Hygenius
2009 - Mercedes-Benz F-CELL Roadster
2009 - Mercedes-Benz F-Cell based on the Mercedes-Benz B-Class[6]
2013 - Ford Motor Company, Daimler AG, Renault and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. are expected to launch in 2017.

Volkswagen:
2000 - VW Bora Hy-motion-Fuel cell
2002 - VW Bora Hy-power-Fuel cell
2004 - VW Touran Hy-motion-Fuel cell
2007 - VW space up! blue
2008 - VW Passat Lingyu Hymotion[21]
2014 - VW Golf Hymotion

Thanks for the non story asshats

Re:Havent they been working on it for a while now?

[GameboyRMH]

Automakers seem to have recurring amnesia about what a terrible idea hydrogen-powered cars are (See this post.).

The cycle goes like this:

1. Develop hydrogen cars! They're totally the future you guys!
2. Realize they're a terrible idea surrounded by better alternatives.
3. Wait 5~15 years
4. Forget 2
5. GOTO 1

Re:Havent they been working on it for a while now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm holding out for the fuel-cell powered Unimog.

Re:Havent they been working on it for a while now?

[jshackney]

I know, right? Tech. is pretty stagnant.

Errrm ... yes, like they have been for 4 decades

[Qbertino]

News? Daimler-Benz has been doing this since the 70ies - at least.

Again?

[Grishnakh]

What's wrong with these automakers? Haven't they figured out by now that hydrogen is a total waste of time and effort? They tried this silliness back in the 90s and it went nowhere. It's a terrible fuel. It doesn't occur in nature like oil, so you have to use electricity to generate it (like by hydrolysis of water), and it's horrible for storage and handling because it's such a lightweight gas, unlike gasoline and diesel which are relatively easily-handled liquids; you have to have a highly pressurized tank to hold it, and leakage is a problem because hydrogen molecules are so small, so you're not going to get great range, and you've got a highly pressurized tank of highly combustible gas in your vehicle, which is a really bad thing if you have a crash.

The future is electric cars, not hydrogen, and the intermediate step is hybrids. Tesla has already proven EVs work great, and only need cheaper batteries to be practical for the commuting masses, and the Chevy Volt and Toyota Prius have proven that hybrids are practical now.

Re:Again?

[james_shoemaker]

H2 fuel cells are being investigated as they are a way to get an electric car without the problems of a battery electric car. Battery electric cars still have the issue of long long charge times.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct in all regards. Hydrogen is a money and research pit as a fuel for personal transportation.

Re:Again?

[fustakrakich]

Only Rube Goldberg can build the necessary infrastructure for this. It is totally unreasonable, unless they're making flying cars for outer space.

Re:Again?

[ShanghaiBill]

so you have to use electricity to generate it (like by hydrolysis of water)

Most hydrogen is made by steam reforming of NG, not by electrolysis. Although, if people are going to recharge at home, then electrolysis of water is most likely the way to go.

EVs work great, and only need cheaper batteries to be practical

HFCs work great, and only need better fuel tanks to be practical.

Maybe a trillion dollar industry can explore more than one option.

Re:Again?

[Motard]

Plus, Teslas (for instance) are always dragging around an extra 1000lbs.

Re:Again?

[burtosis]

The hydrogen is absorbed in a medium, it's not just pressurized like air or nitrogen. So the overall pressure is lower and in the case of an accident it won't all come out at once Hollywood style. It's roughly about as dangerous as gasoline. Lithium batteries can fail spectacularly in accidents as well, doubly so in a fire. Really there is no way around storing massive amounts of energy in the vehicle unless you build out an even more ridiculous power delivery system in roads making the hydrogen issue look like child's play.

Even with the problems you mention it's got a much greater energy density than lithium ion batteries, the main reason it is considered. Pound for pound these hydrogen vehicles have far greater range than battery electrics. But besides legitimate complaints with hydrogen you have the difficulty of the catalyst in the fuel cell which tends to be highly problematic.

Re:Again?

[Grishnakh]

You're going to be dragging around a 1000 lb. tank to get any useful range out of a hydrogen car if you want it to be remotely survivable in a crash.

Re:Again?

[mlts]

Ideally, the best fuel would be something with a high energy per volume, such as the Audi-made synthetic diesel (e-diesel) from CO2 in the air, or perhaps ethanol. Something that doesn't need anything more significant than a liquid storage tank, as opposed to what is needed for CNG, or even LP gas. Cars get into wrecks, and who knows what might puncture the gas tank, so having a complex system is nice, but if it takes out a city block if the vehicle using it gets rear-ended, it isn't workable.

Then comes the engine. Moving to an IC engine design means that you get 1/3 of the energy coming out as torque, and the rest as heat or exhaust. Engine design isn't an easy task either, because it will see environments that the engineers have never even anticipated. So, it would be generations of engines before a H2 motor became as reliable as what moves an average gasser.

What would be the ideal, is what the parent poster mentions -- high capacity batteries. Get a type of battery that is portable, fairly safe (think LiFePO4 batteries), can work in the temperature extremes that vehicles are put to, and has a high discharge/recharge cycle rate. If this gets within a tenth of what gasoline has for energy by volume, this changes everything. The IC engine can be tossed, and electric motors used.

For the average Joe Sixpack, what does the hydrogen economy bring? It means more energy used (hydrolysis is very energy wasteful), so utility prices go up and more base load power plants needed. Hydrogen is very explosive, so expensive means have to be used so mitigate damage to the tank and lines. This means vehicles cost more. There has to be an ecosystem put in place to fill up on H2 or replace fuel storage cells... and that is expensive, which gets passed to the consumer.

Even more insidious, is the fact that the H2 economy will be tied to a limited group that provides the H2 creation and distribution. With an electric vehicle, it doesn't care where the electricity comes from. It can come from a solar array, a water turbine, a wind turbine... there are many ways from the ground up to make usable electricity that it provides robustness. We really do not need another monopoly/cartel.

Hybrids need to go past the novelty stage, to becoming something every vehicle has, just like power door locks. For example, a hybrid pickup, if coupled with an inverter that can handle heavy loads, would make the need for a PTO generator moot. Since a vehicle engine has a lot more in the way of pollution controls than most generators, it is better, environmentally, to have that engine do the work. It also means one less motor to worry about. GM has tried attempts at a hybrid pickup, but the ideal would be to have the technology in the 2500 and 3500 vehicles, which the beefed up electrical storage would be a lot more useful. Even more useful would be a hybrid diesel. If FCGEN (an European group making a fuel cell that runs on diesel) gets something useful out there, then the vehicle could be made entirely electric, but a diesel fuel cell (generating 3-10kw) able to keep the batteries powered, eliminating range anxiety.

tl;dr, the absolute best thing are electric vehicles. Second to that, diesels and synthesizing diesel fuel which doesn't go boom due to vapors. In the interim, it would be nice to see hybrid diesels. Hydrogen is a nice dog and pony show which really is a distraction, and would cause far more expense to every party (except the H2 makers.) Not worth it.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, the future is electric cards, because the power comes magically from the power line and batteries are the most eco friendly thing after orange juice.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you care to explain how H2 is any more dangerous than gasoline, LNG or propane? H2 is at least kind enough to disperse itself.

Re:Again?

[Motard]

You're going to be dragging around a 1000 lb. tank to get any useful range out of a hydrogen car if you want it to be remotely survivable in a crash.

Check the curb weight of a Tesla Model S and the Honda Clarity FCV. Tesla is 1000lbs heavier.

Toyota shot their tank with a variety of weapons. It took an armor piercing round to get it to fail. And then the hydrogen simply leaked out.

Re:Again?

[Motard]

Imagine if the Hindenburg was filled with gasoline fumes. Everyone would've blown to tiny bits. In fact, most of the people aboard the Hindenburg survived.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

... you have to have a highly pressurized tank to hold it, and leakage is a problem because hydrogen molecules are so small, so you're not going to get great range, and you've got a highly pressurized tank of highly combustible gas in your vehicle, which is a really bad thing if you have a crash.

This is really not as big of an issue as you seem to think (see here, from Sandia NL). Liquid natural gas vehicles have been around for decades with similar technology to H2 storage, and while risk factors are slightly different we don't hear news stories of LNG vehicles exploding any more that we do petroleum (not newsworthy) or battery (a few high profile Tesla Model S issues come to mind) cars bursting into flames. While technical challenges of increasing energy density and cost efficiency remain for on-board H2 storage, current tanks are quite safe.

The advances in material science and fuel cell technology since the 90's have been remarkable - so I don't understand why you would discount H2 as a fuel on the "its already been tried" basis. That's like saying (ca. 2010) "I had a PDA in the 90's and it was awful, so why are so many companies making smartphones now?" These companies have intelligent and knowledgeable engineers (and maybe a few managers too); hopefully their expert opinion informed the choice to pursue H2 vehicles and it has potential to become a via transportation energy option.

Re:Again?

[Grishnakh]

Teslas can get 170 miles worth of charge in 30 minutes at their Superchargers. For people who take normal rest stops for meals and bathroom breaks, that's not a big problem. And with the huge range they have when fully charged, they have more than enough range for anyone who isn't doing a long road trip, meaning anyone who's a commuter or other normal car user can use them right now without worrying about range (then rent a gas car for road trips).

Re:Again?

[Motard]

Teslas can get 170 miles worth of charge in 30 minutes at their Superchargers..

FCVs are going twice that far and refuel in 4 minutes. The Teslas may be able to partially charge in 30 minutes, but what happens when all the charging stations are in use?

Re:Again?

[runningduck]

Tesla weighs between 4,647 to 4,830 lbs.
Mercedes S class between 4,707 to 4,806 lbs.

I guess that means that the Mercedes has 950 lbs back seat cup holders.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waste of time and effort is a good way to put it in 2016.

In the 90s it looked promising. In the 90s we also a lacked a lot of tech that's now commonplace - Namely deeply commodotized lithium batteries and really amazing, yet cheap control electronics required to channel and harness enough power to move a car at normal speeds.

I suspect fuel cell tech hangs on in the fringes of the consumer space because the main source of hydrogen for consumer products is, surprise, petrochemical. I think many were hoping we'd pivot from burning oil products to instead use them in fuel cells.. Keeping the existing energy institutions more or less in place.

Well, its 2016 and batteries have gotten a LOT better and fuelcells.. Kinda suck. They're bulky, expensive, sensitive, require expensive and VERY clean fuels, and not really all that efficient. And they don't put out much power. They're really only good in some niche applications where you can store lots of fuel and need a lot of quickly available power after lots of cold storage. (Think military)

Check out this teardown of a recent effort to bring fuel cells to the consumer market. The Upp fuel cell phone charger. (Warning. This youtuber is amazing and you'll be hooked on his channel.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y48wCuC3KcA

He tears the thing completely apart and examines it piece by piece. Makes it quite clear why a pile of cheap batteries is entirely more practical than fuel cells for consumers. You also get to experience how he first hand learns why hydrogen storage is impractical (And possibly dangerous)

Re:Again?

[blind biker]

Not quite. The H2 tanks are hefty, no arguing that, but the energy density of 700 bar Type III tanks is already far higher than the best Li-Po battery.

Re:Again?

[Ogive17]

So there is no energy input to refine oil into gasoline? You don't think technology has improved over the past few decades?

I'm not going to refute many of your points, however saying that it didn't work in the '90s for these reasons doesn't mean it cannot work better now. Enough auto makers are pursuing it (and some have had cars on the road for years) that maybe they can make something that is efficient.

Re:Again?

[mspohr]

The Clarity is a smaller car. Shorter, not as wide, shorter wheelbase, seats only 4, not 5 like the Tesla. Less storage space. Not comparable at all.

Re:Again?

[Blaskowicz]

I saw a couple electric chargers I didn't know about the other day. A couple people were chatting about it, one was remarking that the cars parked next to it were non electric.
That's the current state of the art, before hardly anyone is owning personal electric cars.
Might work in the stereotypical american town with square kilometers of parking lots but that's it.

Re:Again?

[Grishnakh]

Batteries don't need energy density that high. The conversion efficiency of H2 to torque isn't nearly as high as it is for battery-stored electricity in an induction motor.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with these automakers? Haven't they figured out by now that hydrogen is a total waste of time and effort? They tried this silliness back in the 90s and it went nowhere.

VR goggles were tried in the 90s and went nowhere. Tablets where tried in the 90s and went nowhere.

Sometimes the reason it went nowhere was because the technology wasn't there yet.

Re:Again?

[Grishnakh]

The things you cite weren't limited by basic physics. Hydrogen-based power is.

Those things also didn't already have alternatives which were clearly better.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Tesla has not proven that EV work great in every country. In my country a Tesla would release just as much CO2 and a lot of pollution as the average 10 year old diesel engine. Simply because my country relies on coal powered plants. Since a 10 year old diesel is a lot cheaper than a brand new Tesla, it is more economical and green to drive a second or third hand diesel. That's still the problem with electric vehicles. On top of that just imagine when everyone drive electric. Where are you going to charge your car?

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

but what happens when all the charging stations are in use?

Has this ever happened?
If most people drove electric then every parking slot would have a charger.
I would imagine that the number of charging stations would be increased with the increasing number of EV.

Re:Again?

[Motard]

but what happens when all the charging stations are in use?

Has this ever happened?

Yes, it has. http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/...

Re:Again?

[orzetto]

The charge times are a factor, but mostly it's cost, cost, cost!

Batteries are economically unsustainable: Li-ion batteries (the type with high energy density that you need in any battery vehicle) cost about 500 $/kWh. You can expect it to drop somewhat through the next decades, say to 300 in 2050, but they are already being mass-produced and unless a significant, revolutionary breakthrough happens, this technology has already delivered what it can.

Hydrogen storage, instead, costs about 12 $/kWh, much cheaper (I'm talking of the only commercial technology, compressed hydrogen at 350 or 700 bar). In addition to that, you need the fuel cells to convert hydrogen to power, and they cost about 300 $/kW (not kWh, kW). However, they are not mass-produced, in which case projections indicate they would cost about 50 $/kW or lower.

Now, trust me on this one (or do the calculations yourself): of the world's 10 most sold cars, almost all have one kW in the engine for every kWh of fuel in the tank (netting for engine efficiency). So mass-produced hydrogen cars can have a powertrain that is an order of magnitude cheaper than batteries by the kWh when mass-produced. Not only you can build a car that drives 500 km—you can afford it too!

But what about efficiency, I hear someone in the back shouting: it is true that batteries are about 90% efficient, and the electrolysis, compression and fuel cells train is about 40% efficient. However, consider this: a battery can operate for about 1500 cycles before end-of-life. Every kWh of capacity will store and release 1500 kWh, which in consumer prices (different by country, I know) is about 150 $. This means that the cost of batteries is much higher than the cost of the energy they will store through their entire lifetime. Efficiency in operation actually takes a back seat when investment costs are this high.

Finally, what about capacity? Li-ion batteries store 0.25 kWh/kg (that's why Teslas are so heavy). Hydrogen (including the pressurised tanks, that are 90% of the weight, and netting for 50% efficiency) provides 2 kWh/kg, again one order of magnitude higher.

To be clear: there is a marked for batteries and one for hydrogen. Smaller applications for short usage are better with batteries (think commuter cars). Larger applications, or applications that in general need a lot of energy compared to power (taxis, buses, trucks, even ships) are better served with hydrogen.

Re:Again?

[stevelinton]

As the subject says -- "fuel cell" -- that means no IC engine hydrogen and oxygen (from air) produce water and electricity directly. No Carnot cycle, no moving parts. After that the drive train is electric, just like a battery car.

You can make hydrogen by electrolysis, which is not so efficient, but you can do it whereever and whenever you have cheap electricity. Alternatively if you have methane that you are allowed to burn (whether it's natural gas or from rotting sewage) you can make hydrogen pretty cheaply from it.

See also the remarks above about Audi stress-testing their tank -- the only thing that touched it was an armour-piercing round, which made a hole and no fire. A hydrogen leak is generally much LESS dangerous than a gasoline leak because it doesn't hang around at ground level and soak into things. Given half a chance it'll just diffuse away.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if I've got this right, the conversion efficiency of electricity (H2) to torque isn't nearly as high as it is for battery-stored electricity in an induction motor? What's the difference between the electricity from a fuel cell and that from a battery? Perhaps you think fuels cells can't produce the amperage which leads to torque? You know a single LiPo battery doesn't produce much amperage, but this can be solved by using many in parallel, right? You know you can do the exact same thing with fuel cells, right?

Re:Again?

[BarneyGuarder]

I think the idea is to use hydrogen as an energy storage alternative to batteries. The problem with batteries is that the basically suck. Sure, they suck a lot less than they used to but they are heavy, expensive, and take a long time to charge.

The (over-)simplified system with batteries is:
        power source -> electricity distribution network -> charge battery -> power motor

The charge battery step is the long one. Even though EVs with a few hundred miles of range will work very well for the vast majority of urban travelers, the long charge time prevents the use of EVs in any long distance use cases.

Using hydrogen changes the (again, over-)simplified system to:
        power source -> hydrogen generation -> fuel distribution network -> fill H2 tank -> fuel cell -> power motor

This system has its problems, to be sure. However, it replaces the "charge battery" step with "fill H2 tank" which can operate similarly to filling gasoline tanks today. It does require new infrastructure development, but then long distance travelers, transportation drivers, delivery drivers, etc. can go about their day and re-fill the H2 tanks when necessary.

Is it worth it? I don't know. But it is an other avenue to solving addressing the limitations with batteries.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

American towns don't have square kilometers of anything ...

Re:Again?

[HornWumpus]

10,000psi tanks in every car. What could go wrong?

Re:Again?

[HornWumpus]

If true, it just means Mercedes has forgotten what an S class is supposed to be.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not do one more step and convert it to methane (natural gas)? Cars run pretty well on that and it removes many of the problems you've cited for hydrogen. Sure, you lose money doing the conversion, but it would still be cheaper than electric, in terms of cost per energy storage ($/kWh). In terms of distribution, natural gas lines are all over the place.

Re: Again?

[WindBourne]

You do not hear it because lng storage is at a fraction of the temp and pressure. In addition, methane is not as destructive as lh2 is esp on metals.

Re: Again?

[WindBourne]

LOL. You really want to compare these 2? Fcx is 3/4 of the price of a MS. The fcx seats 4, has a little bitty trunk, does 0-60 in 10 seconds, uses fuel more expensive than gasoline, and has less than 20 refueling stations in all of America. Otoh, the MS seats 5-7, still has large frunck as well as trunck for 5 seater. Does 0-60 in less than 1/2 of the time( and that is the cheapest version ). Has over 10,000 'fueling stations' in America, not including the home's plugs. Lh2 has absolutely no use in America, and probably not any nation.

Re: Again?

[WindBourne]

Fuel cells are big and expensive and already in parallel stacks. The slow 0-60 is a compromise of costs and weight on the part of the fuel cell.

Re: Again?

[WindBourne]

Oh man. You are a crack-up. How many Tesla use charging stations more than once a month? Fewer than 5%. Most everybody charges at home. Keep in mind that 98% of all passenger vehicle trips are less than 100 miles. In fact, nearly all Tesla drivers comment on the lack of lost time due to having to go to charging stations weekly or more. Fcv HAVE to go to fueling stations. Always.

Re: Again?

[WindBourne]

Lol. Tesla and LG are already well below 200/kwh. In fact, gm claimed that lg was below 145/kwh and approaching tesla's costs. Tesla is thought to be below 125/kwh, and says that they will be well below 99/kwh by 2020. So not even close to your rant.

Re: Again?

[WindBourne]

And the rest of your rant is way off again. First off, Tesla and LG are thought to have much higher cycles. It is already known that first gen Tesla batteries in roadster went to about 150k before hitting 85% capacity. Now MS has several cars with 125k and are still around 95% capacity. However, where will the fuel cell on fcv be by 100k miles? They will be in the trash because they have to be replaced every 50k miles or so. Then lets add the fact that 96% of all hydrogen in the world comes not from electrolysis, but by burning a rich nat gas mixture which produces far worse emissions. SO No, the real expensive vehicle are lh2.

Re: Again?

[Type44Q]

Or you might have forgotten that while there was the [lightweight] SL, there was also the SEL...

Re:Again?

[SpiceWare]

Odd that they don't mention the wildfire that shut down 101, which caused traffic to be diverted to 5. So the higher traffic due to holiday travel was compounded by road closure.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

A section of Highway 101, a key north-south route, remained closed on Saturday afternoon, forcing holiday travelers to use alternative routes.

Re:Again?

[Grishnakh]

Are you talking about converting existing cars to CNG or LNG? There's some problems with that one, namely range. They did that about 15 years ago in Phoenix because of some tax credits or something and it was a disaster.

The main problem is that you need a big-ass and heavy tank to hold the stuff, and because it's gaseous (for CNG), you end up not having much fuel even with a giant tank taking up the car's entire trunk, or for pickups, about 1/3 of the truck's bed. So you wind up with a vehicle with limited range and compromised cargo space. (Now of course, these were dual-fuel conversions which retained the gasoline tanks, but still the gasoline tanks were much smaller in volume so it's not like you'd be able to move the CNG tank there; you'd wind up with 20 miles of range.) The other option, LNG, is even worse because there's no LNG infrastructure (the CNG users just use their home's natural gas supply), and it's even more pressurized so you need an even heavier tank though you get more fuel in it.

Either way, a tank full of highly compressed gas seems like a bad idea in a motor vehicle that's somewhat likely to be involved in an accident at some point.

Re:Again?

[joe_frisch]

Yes, they avoid the problems of batteries, but add the much worse problems with fuel cells and storing hydrogen. The charge time is quicker, but they are worse than batteries in most other ways.

Re:Again?

[pkphilip]

What's wrong with these automakers? Haven't they figured out by now that hydrogen is a total waste of time and effort?

That is actually not true. There are definite advantages with Hydrogen fuel cells..

a) The amount of weight that the cars need to lug around comes down a lot with fuel cells.

b) Recharging EVs at home will become an issue over time especially in apartment complexes because the apartment complex will need to draw huge amounts of power from the grid to make this happen and these chargers will have to be installed in every parking bay etc.

c) Refueling can be done pretty quickly. With EVs, even with fast chargers, it will still take about an hour to get enough charge to go for 100 miles. In the case of hydrogen fuel cells, the refuel process can be completed in minutes.

d) Because it takes a long time to recharge EVs - even the most cutting-edge fast chargers from the new Porsche EV will take about 15 minutes to recharge, a recharge station can service only very few EVs simultaneously - both because of the very high power draw required per vehicle + also the time it takes to recharge each vehicle. That is not a problem with Hydrogen fuel. Refueling stations can service many more vehicles at the same time (similar to the current Petrol/Diesel stations).

f) Recent advances such as the one in the University of Glasgow allows for hydrogen to be produced 30 times faster and its storage in inorganic liquid fuels - thus solving the two big problems with Hydrogen fuel cells - cost-effective, industrial generation of hydrogen and its safe storage.

Re:Again?

[Grishnakh]

c) Refueling can be done pretty quickly. With EVs, even with fast chargers, it will still take about an hour to get enough charge to go for 100 miles.

Tesla Superchargers can charge 170 miles' worth in 30 minutes.

Re:Again?

[dave420]

1. It's better to have the pollution at the power station than being released all over cities & towns
2. People can charge their cars wherever there is electricity. If enough people drive electric cars, charging stations will appear everywhere, including at your work.
3. When your country gets its act together and gets cleaner electricity, no upgrade to the electric cars is required to reduce pollution.

Re: Again?

[HornWumpus]

All of which are Ss (Sport). If the lightest benz sports car weighs 4707 they have forgotten what a sports car is. I don't think so.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The future is electric cars, not hydrogen

these are electric cars, they combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity that in turn make an electric motor run

VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[DogDude]

I'm so happy to hear about this company working on a new, revolutionary automotive technology breakthrough! I hope it's as game changing as their wonderful fuel-efficient, clean burning, high torque producing diesel engines!

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[plopez]

The sarcasm is strong in this one.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two out of three ain't bad.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[gstoddart]

Which tends to happen when the "lying bastards" aspect of the companies in question gets as high as it did.

They brought that on themselves.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Volkswagen Group spends more on R&D than any other company, so it is not that surprising that they are working on lots of new technology. While VW's diesels are indeed very good, I would hardly call them game-changing. Mercedes, BMW and Peugeot have very good diesels, too.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[110010001000]

They spend more on covering up their lies than any other company. If by "very good" you mean "very polluting" you are correct.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other manufacturers have done far worse things, both regarding emissions and other aspects (e.g. safety, fuel economy). It is ridiculous how much flak VW gets for something that the majority of the industry seem to be doing while VW is the only manufacturer that actually acknowledging what they have done and that is actually recalling the cars to reduce emissions. Never mind GM knowingly selling cars with faulty ignition switches that have caused over a hundred deaths to save a few cents and then lying about it. Or GM receiving a mere token fine when they were caught with a defeat devices in 500.000 Cadillacs. Or GM denying emissions cheating even when it is pretty clear.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh this same old ignorant canard again. Go look at how many others were busted for doing the same thing with particulate waste much higher. Yet no one but VW was called out on it. If you are going to fly this flag of retardation, at least do some research.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[unique_parrot]

Come on, they are just a little bit more polluting than advertised. I think that's not a big deal.
There are worse problems in advertisinig, like "SAVE20% IF SHOPPING > $100", so I have to spend money to save money??? - this is psycholigically VERY tricky.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[unique_parrot]

Or "Internet Speeds UP TO xxMB/s", that's also a lie in advertising (if you typically get 1/3rd of the speed)...

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[110010001000]

Waaah, mommy! They did it too! Give me a break. They are just a bunch of liars.

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[mspohr]

Do you mean emitting 30 times as much NOx as allowed is "just a little bit more polluting"?

Re:VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[unique_parrot]

I think here is a real problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The pollution problem is overrated IMHO.

Re: VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[mspohr]

Do you think Flint pollution is overrated or VW?

Re: VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[unique_parrot]

I think VW is overrated. But it is a better TV filler, because it is easier to bash on.

Re: VW/Audi/Porsche working on new tech?

[mspohr]

Poor people dying of cancer and lead poisoning isn't as sexy as middle class folks getting lung cancer and respiratory disease.

The hydrogen economy is a scam

[plopez]

The cheapest way to produce large amounts of hydrogen is by hydrocarbon fractionation This process starts with, wait for it, natural gas. It also produces CO2 which is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Re:The hydrogen economy is a scam

[Grishnakh]

Yep. On top of that, you're using energy to create the hydrogen in the first place, then when you burn the hydrogen in a piston engine, you're limited to the Carnot efficiency, and again are wasting most of the energy as heat. So your overall system efficiency is going to be crap, even worse in fact than with gasoline.

At least with electric cars, the biggest source of inefficiency is the power plant itself, but there you have flexibility as you can use any power source, whether it's shitty, nasty coal, nuclear, or totally renewable wind or solar. And power plants of any type have better efficiency, due to scale, than small car engines. The next biggest source of inefficiency is the transmission-line losses, but installing more solar power locally would improve that a lot. The battery losses aren't much, and the losses in the locomotion (the electric motor) and tiny.

Re:The hydrogen economy is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

You're aware H2 vehicles react the hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell in a process that makes all other forms of electricity generation look horrible, right? You don't actually burn it. No, the biggest problem today with fuel cell is that they typically use something like platinum as a catalyst and there's physically not enough platinum in the world to convert the worlds vehicle fleet to fuel cell. If they can figure out a more common catalyst, and possibly a better way to make H2 that doesn't involve methane or is more efficient than breaking apart water, then you've got a nearly perfect fuel source. Granted, maybe you start collecting the methane from dumps and converting that to H2, maybe that would create enough to power a good portion of the fleet.

Re:The hydrogen economy is a scam

[jmcharry]

Also, hydrogen is an intermediate in the Haber process for producing ammonia for fertilizer. You are essentially burning food.

Re:The hydrogen economy is a scam

[Motard]

Nothing is being burned. The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air to produce electricity and water.

Re:The hydrogen economy is a scam

[Blaskowicz]

Why not use the methane directly, then? Or turn it into methanol.

Re:The hydrogen economy is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

For the methanol comment, I've no idea if you're making a joke or not since I don't believe methane and methanol are chemically related, though I'm not a chemist, so maybe you can convert them. But when you just use methane directly that's called a LNG vehicle, such as the buses in my community often use, and is the same as burning any other fossil fuel. The idea of fuel cells is to do it at very high efficiency. The methane produced by a dump would provide no where near enough methane to power a fleet at the standard efficiency rates of ICEs. Use that to run fuel cells though, at something like 5x the efficiency, and now we might have something.

Re: The hydrogen economy is a scam

[WindBourne]

Methanol is simply methane with an o added between the c and 1 h. And some fuel cells do use methanol. Expensive and runs even shorter than H2 fuel cells.

Re: The hydrogen economy is a scam

[WindBourne]

Yeah, but burning is nothing more than combining hydrogen and oxygen and getting heat and light rather than electrons. Fuel cells work on similar principle, but channel the energy into electrons, if you will.

Re:The hydrogen economy is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with using platinum. Most of the world's platinum group metals are in territories potentially hostile to western interests. Zimbabwe, Russia and South Africa.

Re: The hydrogen economy is a scam

[Blaskowicz]

Methanol would be for the ease of storage. Another "great" idea like that is to produce NH3 (ammonia) from H2 (Haber-Bosch or similar), so that it's easier to store than H2 and has a pretty nice energy density per volume. I want to believe it's a good idea but it's likely too energy intensive to be competitive.

Anti PR Shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck they found out about diesel... quick rehash our old "green-tech" archive to distract those cancer patients primed to sue us into oblivion.

There are ways...

[unique_parrot]

...to get the H2 from a panel, like a solar panel, but with a chemical solution (not an electrical solar module). Does anybody know how big such a panel would be, to drive a H2 car for about 100km/week, like in california sun regions?

Relative point of view.

[DrYak]

If $X is provably corrupt.
AND group @Y to which $Y belong are all even more corrupt
THEN you can BOTH say that :
X - is corrupt (yes you're right).
and
Y - is the best (yes, the anonymous poster is right too, because the others are even worse).

In other words, as the saying goes: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

Hydrogen: Best selection of the worst downsides!

[GameboyRMH]

Hydrogen gives you the high up-front vehicle costs of an EV, the ongoing fuel costs of an ICE car, currently it gives you the fuel sourcing environmental problems of an ICE (look up where most hydrogen comes from today), and the fuel transportation and storage problems of...hydrogen.

Hydrogen cars are only missing the vehicle emissions problems and complexity of an ICE, and the range and refueling time problems of a current EV to be the worst of all worlds in all areas.

review

[setykoplak]

good news I'm always waiting for the latest blog posts. I created the blog because I was inspired by this blog. This is my blog Download Lagu Terbaru

Unfortunately, given recent German practice...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll say it runs on hydrogen while filling the tank with babies, puppies, kittens and your wife's wedding dress.

Poly-gas fuel?

[John Da' Baddest]

Is it feasible to build these engines such that they can run on several types of gaseous fuels - CNG and H2 and perhaps others like Propane? Flexibility in the fuel cycle could be a way to introduce H2 if large-scale manufacturing of it becomes worthwhile.

What's supposed to be the point of H2 fuel anyway, as far as cars are concerned? More convenient for fuel cells than Xanols?

Re:Poly-gas fuel?

[drinkypoo]

Is it feasible to build these engines such that they can run on several types of gaseous fuels - CNG and H2 and perhaps others like Propane?

Probably not. You would probably need a variable compression engine to add in H2. CNG or LPG dual-fuel is a simpler retrofit, "all" you need is to add injectors and nozzles and program the computer to handle it, or add another computer. As the VAG smog fiasco demonstrates, you can have multiple sets of maps in the PCM, so it's no problem to switch to different maps for a different fuel. You would also need a PCM with enough injector driver outputs to run a second set of injectors, or some sort of switching hardware. When you add H2, you add whole new classes of problem like hydrogen embrittlement, which substantially drives up cost as it requires different alloys, or at least expensive coatings, but you can literally add the ability to run on LPG to an older vehicle (say, anything pre-OBD-II) for just a few hundred bucks, and that includes a PCM and "injectors".

Re:Poly-gas fuel?

[John Da' Baddest]

Impressive, you've explained how to do it and described the issues which will be encountered!

So H2 fuel introduces new limiting factors; therefore let me reorganize my question: With an engine designed to burn H2 fuel, like the ones mentioned in the original post, is it feasible to make cost-effective modifications such that it could also burn more conventional carbon-based gases?

Good.

[WindBourne]

The longer it takes Germany to refocus their efforts on EVs only, the bigger that Tesla , Google, apple, and Faraday will grow. For them to start up and survive, they need a new part of the industry that the main streams are ignoring.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

EVs are a negligiable part of the market for years to come. The German car manufacturers will start producing EVs on larger scales when the market is ready. Tesla, Google, Apple and Faraday will not be able to compete. Of those, only Tesla actually has a car and it's not that great for the price, it took lots of outside help to develop it and they have made very little progress in developing new models. The German and Japanese manufacturers have loads of experience designing and manufacturing cars for every possible market and they have been making electric cars for decades. They are merely waiting for the market to be ready to start a full-scale transition.

Dear everyone who bitches about Hydrogen

[ArcSecond]

I thought you guys were supposed to know shit. You don't need a tank of hydrogen to power a hydrogen fuel cell. THIS IS NOT NEWS. http://www.fch.europa.eu/proje...

Re:Dear everyone who bitches about Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

This discussion is generally about the relative merits of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. It seems your link refers to stationary power sources which have different performance requirements.

In general, using hydrogen as an energy carrier imposes some loss of efficiency over battery storage. Depending upon how the energy is produced and which processes are adopted, relative efficiency of H2 can vary from 2-3 times less to perhaps within 30% of a battery. But there are advantages, particularly in regard to range, weight, cost (when scaled), and refueling time. Larger vehicles with higher energy requirements may be better suited for H2, especially when coupled with the latest in cryo-compressed storage. Any large scale adoption of H2 distribution will very likely move to liquefaction. All technology involves tradeoffs, whether nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

Wisdom, pay attention!

[Anonymous Coward]

Criticism should mention that Tesla batteries use lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese and lots of them, which means China, the world's largest sourcer essentially mines itself into moonscape and villages are being razed by the red militias to make place for digging. Women deliver deformed babies and children fall sick from poisoning due to all the refuse dumped in the countryside, with the concept of environmental protection essentially being non-existent there. The tragedy of common little people is going on for profit almighty.

Each Tesla e-car hauls about 980lbs of batteries under the floor-plate and manufacturing each battery needs 500x times its own weight as raw materials to start the process. Thus, massive demand artificially generated to consume the excessive production capacity of "Teslasonic" Gigafactories means the lands of China will be devoured faster and faster. Those lands become poisoned with metals and cannot ever be used for agriculture to feed China's 1.3+ billion people.

In contrast, while fuel cells are monetarily expensive, they require only ~3 coin's worth of platinum metal as catalyst, in addition to traditional industrial raw materials (mostly steel, which only needs trace amounts of e.g. nickel, chrome, manganese to become stainless). The environmental impact of fuel cells is much less than that of chemical batteries. Who is greener than? Tesla is only "green" for the american suburbian lawn but dirty for the chinese, yet fuel cells offer hope to all people over the world.

Re:Hydrogen: Best selection of the worst downsides

[Citizen of Earth]

It's a lot more ludicrous than you describe. Between production, distribution, and usage, the hydrogen economy is a complete non-starter (like your fuel-cell car after taking its first sniff of atmospheric O2).

jos lagunya

[setykoplak]

good news I'm always waiting for the latest blog posts. I created the blog because I was inspired by this blog. This is my blog Download Lagu Terbaru