Reply #15: Yes, the first reference was about reducing the conversion loss by a lot. [View All]

[Random_Australian]

But here we strike the main reason why hydrogen is still a contender for the next fuel cell - the good old lead acid involves less loss, but it is not a viable power source for the car in terms of power to weight and the ability to recharge. The criteria that it needs to hold about as much power per weight (and in a similar volume) as petrol is a real bastard.


And yeah, ok. Ultracapacitors seem neat. And in complete honesty, if they get them working they'd be ok. (Well, unlikely to charge in 10 minutes, but still rather convenient)

They have a lot of problems though. I know some of them have been addressed but in complete honesty I am somewhat skeptical, and the problems (especially problems with the specific capacitance of the carbon-based particulate used on the layers of barium titanate, unless I've got myself mixed up) seem rather more intrinsic than the problems with lithium and hydrogen.

As for zinc, it takes about as many conversions as hydrogen. (And to me zinc oxide is associated more with solar cells than sunblock, as an aside, though I may have intercalated up to about 43% cobalt into it - not so environmentally friendly)

And maybe I wasn't typing clearly, but I could have sworn I specifically addressed "The big problem with fuel cells is the use of hydrogen gas" and "energy density of current storage systems is inadequate" last time. Well, maybe I didn't. But anyway, the point is, that is the aim of the current research with the microporous inorganic framework.

"In any event, we have been working on fuel cells for a very long time. Always it's been just around the corner. We have only recently (within the last 3 or 4 years) started looking at some of these other technologies."

Yah, I certainly agree that we've been looking at fuel cells for ages. I have two things against the rest of that paragraph, though.

1) Chemistry has only recently progressed to the point of being able to solve the problems with fuel cells. I wouldn't think that just because we haven't thus far, we never will.

2) The article I was reading about ultracapacitors (so that I wouldn't be speaking out of my arse) was a review article in a journal from the year 2000, talking about how far they had come with ulracapacitors. That's more than four years. :)

But in complete honesty, I am forced to agree with the very last thing you said - even if it is simply because so many alternatives are being investigated, it's more likely that something else will be our next fuel, not hydrogen.