Comments

• 	Fuel Cells Wrong Approach jmaximus9 on 03/05/2008 at 11:10 PM
  Posts: 32 Avg Rating:	Fuel cells require expensive platinum, the most precious metal. Hydrogen isn't cheap to make and is hard to store.  Plugin hybrids make much more sense. Add thin membrane solar on the car body and you can increase its battery range even more. If you get the electricity from renewable resources like wind, solar, or geothermal then you have zero emissions also. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Who said fuel cells must run on hydrogen?... gabrielg01 on 03/06/2008 at 10:22 AM
  Posts: 270 Avg Rating:	There is this ubiquitous assumption that fuel cells run on hydrogen...EXCLUSIVELY...But where do you people get that from? Fuel cells in principle can run on many other fuels. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Who said fuel cells must run on hydrogen?... Siphon on 03/20/2008 at 12:43 PM
    Posts: 57 Avg Rating:	And not all of them need platinum either. Higher temperature fuel cells such as solid oxide fuel cells, molten carbonate fuel cells and direct carbon fuel cells use ceramics and other common materials. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• GM and Toyota do support hydrogen technologies NHA on 03/06/2008 at 9:24 PM

  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:

  The Hydrogen Education Foundation is surprised by the inaccurate elements in the article published in the Wall Street Journal about General Motors and Toyota abandoning their support to develop hydrogen cars on March 5, 2008.  At about the same time the Wall Street Journal published their story about General Motors and Toyota, CNN published a story how BP and General Motors believe hydrogen is part of the future: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/companies/bigoil_hydrogen/?postversion=2008030507  Plus, GM and Shell recently released a white paper which says "We have thought through many complex issues around sustainable transportation and our confidence in the future of hydrogen remains high."  The fact remains that Toyota and General Motors, plus other major autos like Honda and BMW, are continuing with their endeavors to develop hydrogen cars.  All are sponsors of the Hydrogen Education Foundation's new education initiative: H2 and You.  The hub of the program is http://www.h2andyou.org.  Separate from the frequent emphasis on hydrogen cars, the reality is hydrogen can be used to power many applications.  The next cell phone call you make could be powered by hydrogen since fuel cell power supplies support cell phone towers.  In addition, the next time you shop at Wal-Mart the box of Oreo cookies and the new Blue Ray movie you purchase could be transported with a fuel cell forklift.  While the transition to hydrogen may appear to be complicated and far into the future, organizations such as Shell, Chevron, and BP are working with the Department of Energy now to establish a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.  An initial $10 to $15 billion investment, equivalent to about one month of military spending in Iraq, would establish an initial refueling infrastructure within 2 miles anywhere within the top 100 metro areas and along all US highways.  Furthermore, more than 40 billion kg of hydrogen are produced globally each year with production plants located near or within every major metropolitan city in the US - enough to fuel 130 million fuel cell-electric vehicles annually.  Since hydrogen is also used to produce gasoline, switching from gas to hydrogen is simpler than it appears. The Hydrogen Education Foundation appreciates the complexity of transitioning to using new fuels.  We invite everyone to learn about what is fact and fiction about hydrogen as an alternative fuel. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	What ever happened to... geddarkstorm on 03/06/2008 at 9:52 PM
  Posts: 1	What ever happened to this design http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UDO/is_14/ai_78476761 using gasoline in the car to create the hydrogen for the fuel cell there and then, thus achieving efficiencies above a conventional ICE but still using the standard gasoline infrastructure? A design like that solves most of the criticism in this article. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Fuel Cells georgeg100 on 03/07/2008 at 7:34 AM
  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	One day hydrogen might be here. In the meantime the newer Lithium based batteries are getting better.  Why is there little research going on with regenerative braking and ultra capacitors?  Seems like this could be an econcomically viable  step. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• fuel cells vs batteries buelts on 03/07/2008 at 2:08 PM

  Posts: 2 Avg Rating:

  Neither fuel cells or batteries can a produce a car more efficient than internal combustion at a cost where your average consumer can buy it.  Seems like doing research on both technologies would make since for the time being.  Plug in hybrids with much smaller and cheaper batteries than all electrics can be produced at a reasonable cost today and result in a high efficiency for short distances which comprise the bulk of driving. This technology is economical and is being implemented.    Maybe more money could be put into battery research but until either h2 or batteries solve the problem of producing an efficient inexpensive car that can be refueled rapidly and has a few hundered mile range why not fund both.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: fuel cells vs batteries FreddyG on 03/08/2008 at 1:01 PM

    Posts: 4 Avg Rating:

    "... why not fund both.."  Amen!  The field of R&D is littered with unpredictable successes, failures, twists, and turns.  Many of these technologies make sense to fund in parallel and evaluate what gets traction economically.  Even biofuels, for as bad as they are with respect to overall efficiency of capturing solar energy and doing something useful with it, will play a role and should be funded to a degree.  And don't forget many things we're not funding/barely funding:  high speed rail (tried and true energy and time saver not to mention urban de-congester), heat pumps, solar space and water heating, etc etc.  "Neither fuel cells or batteries can a produce a car more efficient than internal combustion at a cost where your average consumer can buy it"  ....   A large SUV purchased today will burn 20,000 gallons of fuel over its lifetime; $60,000 - $80,000 worth of fuel.  Even the garden variety sedan will burn almost half that; $30,000-$40,000 over its lifetime.  That's how much money we're already spending as a society (not including subsidies like $3,000Billion wars etc).  Cut that fuel bill in half over the life of the car and that's a lot of cash to work with.  Thus, batteries / plug-in hybrids would be quite relatively affordable, as soon as they become available.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

• running on methane nerdgrrl on 03/10/2008 at 9:04 AM

  Posts: 1

  It is true that fuel cells can run off other fuels, such as methane, propane, even natural gas (dirty methane). However, those that do run directly from such fuels are ceramic, and therefore very heavy, and very hot, and probably unreliable in jarring situations (brittle). Polymer fuel cells are light, but only accept propane and the like if there is a "reformer" at the intake- a device that separates the hydrogen from the fuel. Reformers are heavy. And expensive. Oh, and even polymer fuel cells crack in jarring situations. There is a reason that fuel cells have been relegated to spaceships and other exotic situations for 50 years. Too expensive, too persnickety, too low-efficiency. Stationary apps may have some future (i.e. home heat and electricity). Give it another 40-50 years. In the meantime solar, wind, batteries, biofuels et.al. will be improving too. If anyone wants to chat more about this see post on Talkphoria Rate this comment: (Reply)