Honey, I shrunk the fuel cell! Next-gen GM hydrogen stack gets small

[wtmusic]

"In spite of the cuts at General Motors over the past year, work has continued in the powertrain labs at the Warren, MI tech center on hydrogen fuel cells. Back in 2007, GM shifted much of its fuel cell work from the Honeoye Falls, NY research facility to the production engineering group in Warren. The result is the fifth-generation fuel cell stack shown above on the left. The unit on the right is the stack from the fuel cell Equinoxes that are running as part of Project Driveway in California, New York and Washington, DC. The new generation unit matches the 93 kW output of the Equinox unit but occupies the same volume as the 2.4-liter EcoTec four cylinder.

GM has engineered this new stack specifically with the aim of making it producable in volume at a much lower cost than previous designs. That means it gets a cast case with integrated cooling passages and other subsystems. One of the highest cost elements of a fuel cell stack is the platinum used as a catalyst. Read on after the jump.

The fourth-gen stack in the Equinox uses 80 g of platinum while the new stack uses just 30 g. This stack is due for production in volumes of up to 10,000 units a year by the middle of the next decade. In the subsequent iteration, GM plans to have the platinum content down to under 10 g, which would put it on a par with current catalytic converters."

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/17/honey-i-shrunk-the-fuel-cell-next-gen-gm-hydrogen-stack-gets-s/

Make no mistake - this inefficient, clumsy, astroturf "green" propulsion system is heavily subsidized by the oil industry. Watch for hydrogen pumps at your nearby service station soon, where you can buy expensive liquid hydrogen which is electrolyzed using - guess what - fossil fuels.

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. Platinum-free fuel cell promises cheap, green power

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16275-platinumfree-fuel-cell-promises-cheap-green-power.html

Platinum-free fuel cell promises cheap, green power

22:00 15 December 2008 by Colin Barras

Doing away with the use of the precious metal platinum could lead to a new class of low-cost fuel cells, Chinese engineers claim.

…

Platinum has so far been the metal of choice because the membranes used in fuel cells create a very acidic environment, and the metal is stable in such corrosive conditions.

No deposits

Now, though, Lin Zhuang's team at Wuhan University in Hubei province, China, has designed a new membrane that is alkali, not acidic - making it possible to use a much cheaper, nickel, catalyst.

The team's new polymer proves easy to make into fuel-cell membranes, and can also be mixed with the catalyst itself - this increases the contact between the two components and boosts efficiency.

…

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/52/20611

[NNadir]

23. We have here lots of promises, but almost no delivery.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of approaches to fuel cells.

In my files of papers on the subject I have the following breakdown of folders:

C:\...Documents\s\Energy and the Environment\Bio Based and Other Alternate Fuels\Fluid Fuels\Fuel Cells\DCFC

C:\...Documents\s\Energy and the Environment\Bio Based and Other Alternate Fuels\Fluid Fuels\Fuel Cells

C:\...Documents\s\Energy and the Environment\Bio Based and Other Alternate Fuels\Fluid Fuels\Fuel Cells\Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells

C:...Documents\s\Energy and the Environment\Bio Based and Other Alternate Fuels\Fluid Fuels\Fuel Cells\Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells\Direct Cabon Cells

C:\...Documents\s\Energy and the Environment\Bio Based and Other Alternate Fuels\Fluid Fuels\Fuel Cells

C:\...Documents\s\Energy and the Environment\Bio Based and Other Alternate Fuels\Fluid Fuels\Fuel Cells\PEM Fuel Cells

C:\Documents\s\Energy and the Environment\Bio Based and Other Alternate Fuels\Fluid Fuels\Fuel Cells\SOFC

And it's not like those directorys are nearly empty either.

Actually fuel cell technology still intrigues me in a certain way, as an energy transfer device, but it not actually energy, and few of these systems, which Amory Lovins hyped as the "next big thing" 30 years ago is actually significant in our energy picture.

But there are interesting hybrids that should be funded I think, since they are not as "pie in the sky" as some things you read.

[TheMadMonk]

2. Commercial hydrogen is not electrolysed. It's "cracked" from fossil fuels.

Electrolysis is just flat out too expensive a way of producing comercial quantities of hydrogen in all but the most specialised circumstances.

A possibility does exist that this waste carbon could be used to reduce water using the watergas process, C + H2O + heat --> CO + H2. With the CO being separated out and oxidised (burnt) (2CO + O2 --> 2CO2 + heat) to provide at least some of the heat needed for the first stage. The CO2 produced here is enormously more easily captured than that emerging from car exhausts so although there is no actual net reduction in the amount of CO2 produced, it can (at least in theory) be sequestered and not released into the atmosphere.

Thus the problem is that currently hydrogen production is entirely at the mercy of Peak Oil. (Actually Peak Methane, which will remains plentiful long after oil is gone.) However, it at least does have the advantage of making the carbon "waste" more easily captured.


And finally, even if CO2 is not captured, but released to the atmosphere, we still come out ahead of the current practice of exploding fossil fuels inside 'infernal' combustion engines, because a fuel cell/electric motor combo is a lot more enegetically efficient, making for a net greenhouse emmisions gain over the status quo.


If you're going to take a shot, at least get it on target.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Except when it's electrolyzed

http://www.newenergy.is/en/h2_stations/grjothals_station/

[TheMadMonk]

11. I'd also suggest you read the first bloody line of a post before...

...making yourself look like a right twat.

I said: "...in all but the most specialised circumstances."

I'd think Iceland with plenty of geothermal energy and no fucking fossil fuels whatsoever qualifies here.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Brown Chemists Create More Efficient Palladium Fuel Cell Catalysts

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2009/03/palladium

March 17, 2009 | Contact: Richard Lewis | [phone]

Brown Chemists Create More Efficient Palladium Fuel Cell Catalysts

Two Brown University chemists have overcome a challenge to fuel cell reactions using palladium catalysts. The scientists produced palladium nanoparticles with about 40 percent greater active surface area than commercially available palladium particles, and the nanoparticles remain intact four times longer. Results appear in the online edition of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Even small devices need power, and much of that juice comes from fuel cells. As these devices become even smaller, the rush is on to find more efficient ways to power them.

In the last several years, scientists have discovered that palladium, a metal, is a strong candidate for providing that initial boost that helps fuel cells go. Palladium is far cheaper than another popular fuel cell catalyst, platinum, and it’s more abundant.

But researchers have wrestled with creating palladium nanoparticles with enough active surface area to make catalysis efficient in fuel cells while preventing particles from clumping together during the chemical processes that convert a fuel source to electricity. Two Brown University chemists have found a way to overcome those challenges.

The scientists report in the online edition of the Journal of the American Chemical Society that they have produced palladium nanoparticles with about 40 percent greater surface area than commercially available palladium particles. The Brown catalysts also remain intact four times longer than what’s currently available.

“This approach is very novel. It works,” said Vismadeb Mazumder, a graduate student who joined chemistry professor Shouheng Sun on the paper. “It’s two times as active, meaning you need half the energy to catalyze. And it’s four times as stable.”

Mazumder and Sun created palladium nanoparticles 4.5 nanometers in size. They attached the nanoparticles to a carbon platform at the anode end of a direct formic acid fuel cell. The researchers then did something new: They used weak binding amino ligands to keep the palladium nanoparticles separate and at the same size as they’re attached to the carbon platform. By keeping the particles separate and uniform in size, they increased the available surface area on the platform and raised the efficiency of the fuel cell reaction.

“It just works better,” Sun said.

What’s also special about the ligands is that they can be “washed” from the carbon platform without jeopardizing the integrity of the separated palladium nanoparticles. This is an important step, Mazumder emphasized, because previous attempts to remove binding ingredients have caused the particles to lose their rigid sizes and clump together, which gums up the reaction.

The Brown team said in experiments lasting 12 hours, their catalysts lost 16 percent of its surface area, compared to a 64-percent loss in surface area in commercial catalysts.

“We managed to ebb the decay of our catalyst by our approach,” said Mazumder, who is in his second year in Sun’s lab. “We made high-quality palladium nanoparticles, put them efficiently on a support, then removed them from the stabilizers efficiently without distorting catalyst quality.”

The Brown scientists now are looking at various palladium-based catalysts with enhanced activity and stability for future fuel cell applications.

“We want to make it cheaper with analogous activity,” Mazumder said.

The research was funded by the Division of Materials Research of the National Science Foundation and a Brown seed fund.

[kristopher]

5. This is a bit dated...

But it does give the discussion context.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Yes, it's dated and slanted

For example, the current fuel cells in Honda's FCX Clarity are already 60% efficient.
(We're not talking about MIT lab results, these are fuel cells being driven in cars.)

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/fuel-cell-comparison.aspx

[kristopher]

7. Slanted?

Really?

The only thing slanted is you using a "parallel hybrid" instead of a medium range "series hybrid" or "Battery Electric Vehicle" for your comparison.

The numbers in the chart I posted are a little dated, but the basic relative efficiency of the two systems is a SOLID AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL.

Sorry that the truth is so distasteful to you.

[wtmusic]

8. Are you including compression and hydrogen infrastructure

in your 60% figure? "Converting chemical energy into power" is a small part of the picture.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Clearly, I was not

However, the other aspects are being improved as well.
http://techtv.mit.edu/tags/893-nocera/videos/273-tiny-bubbles

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_022276&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | June 23, 2009
Note to journalists: Please report that this research was presented at the 13th Annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference.

Feather fibers fluff up hydrogen storage capacity

COLLEGE PARK, M.D., June 23 – Scientists in Delaware say they have developed a new hydrogen storage method — carbonized chicken feather fibers — that can hold vast amounts of hydrogen, a promising but difficult to corral fuel source, and do it at a far lower cost than other hydrogen storage systems under consideration.

The research, presented here today at the 13th Annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference, could eventually help overcome some of the hurdles to using hydrogen fuel in cars, trucks and other machinery.

The conference is organized by the ACS Green Chemistry Institute®, a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting and advancing the discovery and design of chemical products and processes that eliminate the generation and use of hazardous substances in all aspects of the global chemical enterprise.

“Carbonized chicken feather fibers have the potential to dramatically improve upon existing methods of hydrogen storage and perhaps pave the way for the practical development of a truly hydrogen-based energy economy,” says Richard P. Wool, Ph.D., professor of chemical engineering and director of the Affordable Composites from Renewable Resources program at the University of Delaware in Newark.

The research was presented by Erman Senoz, a graduate student in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Delaware in Newark.

Chicken feather fibers are mostly composed of keratin, a natural protein that forms strong, hollow tubes. When heated, this protein creates crosslinks, which strengthen its structure, and becomes more porous, increasing its surface area. The net result is carbonized chicken feather fibers, which can absorb as much or perhaps more hydrogen than carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides, two other materials being studied for their hydrogen storage potential, Wool says. Plus, they’re cheap.

Using carbonized chicken feathers would only add about $200 to the price of a car, according to Wool. By comparison, making a 20-gallon hydrogen fuel tank that uses carbon nanotubes could cost $5.5 million; one that uses metal hydrides could cost up to $30,000, Wool says.

Hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, has long been touted as a clean and abundant energy alternative to fossil fuels. But its physical characteristics make it very difficult to store and transport — as a pressurized gas it takes up about 40 times as much space as gasoline; as a liquid it needs to be kept at extremely low temperatures.

Wool estimates that it would take a 75-gallon tank to go 300 miles in a car using carbonized chicken feather fibers to store hydrogen. He says his team is working to improve that range.

“The problem with hydrogen as a gas or liquid is its density is too low,” Wool says. “Using currently available technology, if you had a 20-gallon tank and filled it with hydrogen at typical room temperature and pressure, you could drive about a mile. When we started we didn’t know how well carbonized chicken feathers would work for hydrogen storage, but we certainly suspected we could do a lot better than that.”

In addition to hydrogen storage, Wool and his colleagues are working on ways to transform chicken feather fibers into a number of other products including hurricane-resistant roofing, lightweight car parts and bio-based computer circuit boards.

###

[kristopher]

10. You need to achieve more than a 200% increase in overall efficiency.

A 200 plus percent increase in overall efficiency just gets you to where batteries *were* when that chart was made. It isn't dated only on the fuel cell side, you know; batteries also are doing a bit better now.

That means that until such an efficiency increase is achieved, we need to produce 200% more input energy for the transportation sector than if we use batteries for storage.

Then there is the cost of distribution...

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Actually I don't need to achieve anything

The point of the Original Post was that hydrogen fuel cells are some deep dark conspiracy between GM and the oil companies.

Once again, it's a conspiracy that GM has entered into; not only with the oil companies, but with Honda and Toyota and Volkswagen and Nissan and Renault and Mazda and …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_vehicles#Cars


At the current time, batteries are too big and too heavy. (i.e. both storage mediums have their advantages and disadvantages.)

Distribution is a red herring (as you well know.) Hydrogen will not be refined, or pumped from wells. It can be produced anywhere there is electricity and water.

It can be produced at your corner filling station, or in your own garage, using electricity from your back yard solar panel; which brings up one of its advantages over batteries. Hydrogen can be produced at home while you're away, and conveniently stored for refilling your car when you return in the evening.

It can even be used to make solar power available 24 hours a day:
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/documents/SolarSystemsMediaReleaseBaseloadsolarpower21-11-07.pdf

Hydrogen is simply another convenient storage medium for electricity.

[wtmusic]

13. Refilling your car when you return in the evening?

With a rocking solar panel array in the sunniest part of the Southwest, you might get 1 kWh of energy per day back into your car in the form of hydrogen. That'll get you about 3 miles.

If it's not raining. If it's raining, you'll have to call a smelly cab to come and bail you out of your environmental dream scenario. Then again, if it's a hydrogen cab you could fill him up too!

:silly:

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. You're right of course

It would never work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

[wtmusic]

16. Finally, we agree on something.

It didn't work.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Yeah… I guess GM and the oil companies did them in. Huh?

But wait! I thought Hydrogen was just a conspiracy between the oil companies, and almost every automobile manufacturer on the planet!?

I can't keep all of the conspiracies straight…


BTW: I know you're a believer in Who Killed the Electric Car. Does that mean you like Stan Ovshinsky?
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/features/ovshinsky.htm
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm

(In case you didn't know, old Stan is part of the Hydrogen conspiracy too!)


Or, is Hydrogen more of a libertarian thing?
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/08/mit-researchers-discover-new-energy-storage-solution-53214

[wtmusic]

21. No, just bad engineering and pie in the sky thinking.

Bad ideas don't need conspiracies to do them in - just the good ideas.

[kristopher]

15. Hydrogen is simply another convenient storage medium for electricity?

Simply another convenient storage medium for electricity that requires 3X the input energy of batteries.

Distribution is a red herring (as you well know.)
No distribution isn't a red herring. The large renewable resources are location dependent, so the power has to be transmitted somehow. If you want to transmit as electricity before manufacturing the hydrogen, then you are lowering the efficiency even further.

Hydrogen will not be refined, or pumped from wells. It can be produced anywhere there is electricity and water.
With batteries you don't even need the water.

It can be produced at your corner filling station, or in your own garage, using electricity from your back yard solar panel; which brings up one of its advantages over batteries. Hydrogen can be produced at home while you're away, and conveniently stored for refilling your car when you return in the evening.

It can even be used to make solar power available 24 hours a day

You can do the same thing at home with batteries except you only need 1/3 the solar panels or any other energy source.

The bottom line is STILL that you need 200% more generating infrastructure if you are going to use H.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. If you repeat yourself enough times, I may agree

But probably not.

Here's a much more damning assessment (as well as easier to follow):


Of course, it ignores the fact that Honda's current fuel cells are 60% efficient.

Changing nothing else in the equation, that makes the overall efficiency closer to 38%. So, that brings us down to 2¼ right there. (Can we forget about that 3 times as efficient nonsense now?)

Of course, Daniel Nocera at MIT believes he can electolyze water at near 100% efficiency.
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900956

…

A liquid catalyst was added to water before electrolysis to achieve what the researchers claim is almost 100-percent efficiency. …

But, if that were true, someone would start a company to commercialize it. Oh…
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/23388/

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Water-Splitting Company Founded

The start-up is commercializing what some have called a breakthrough new catalyst for producing hydrogen.

By Kevin Bullis

According to the website Xconomy, a start-up has been founded to develop a much-discussed catalyst invented by MIT professor Daniel Nocera, one that can be used to split water efficiently without requiring rare metals or caustic chemicals. …

So, let's see, that leaves us approaching 54% total efficiency (right?) Which, if my envelope serves me, brings us down to about 1.6.

Now can we forget about that 3 times as efficient nonsense?

[NickB79]

18. So, batteries are "only" 160% more efficient than fuel cells, rather than 300%?

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Bad math

These calculations suggest batteries are 60% more efficient, not 160%.

[wtmusic]

22. Try 200% more efficient.

Again - relying on manufacturer hype?

"30% losses for water make-up and electrolysis: factor 0.70
10% losses for compression of hydrogen: factor 0.90
10% losses for distribution of gaseous hydrogen: factor 0.90
3% losses for hydrogen transfer: factor 0.97
50% for conversion to electricity in fuel cells: factor 0.50
10% parasitic losses for the hydrogen fuel cell system: factor 0.90
10% electric losses in the drive-train between battery and wheels: factor 0.90

The "power-plant-to-wheel" efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operated on compressed
gaseous hydrogen will be in the vicinity of 22%."

<>

"Even more attractive are electric cars as suggested by the following number:

10% losses between power plants and homes: factor 0.90
8% losses in small home-based AC/DC battery chargers: factor 0.92
20% losses for battery charging and discharging: factor 0.80
10% losses in the drive-train between battery and wheels: factor 0.90
10% bonus for regenerative braking: factor 1.10

With these numbers the power-plant-to-wheel or wind-farm-to-wheel efficiency of an
electric car with regenerative braking becomes 66%.

http://www.efcf.com/reports/E04.pdf

No contest.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. So, I guess you didn't bother to read what I'd written then

I'll return the favor

[wtmusic]

34. When you're just plain wrong (you are)

and you can't admit it (you can't) and you must have the last word (you typically do) you might at least put some thought into it.

I'm embarrassed for you.

[kristopher]

24. I'm surprised this is important enough to you

that you'd be willing to toss your integrity on the rubbish heap, but post #17 shows that you are.

It is nothing but tragically bumbling sophistry.

ETA: It is clear that the market direction is following batteries, but I just want you to know that I really like the idea of practical, inexpensive fuel cells. There is a sort of "do-it-yourself" quality to the process that gives an appealing sense of self sufficiency (almost certainly illusory) to those of us that recognize just how dependent we are on others for energy. If things work out for H2 as a carrier, I promise you I won't be disappointed if it proves out to be better than batteries. But for now, batteries are a hands down winner. Why not just admit the reality and sit on your preferences until the technology lives up to your hopes. Some things just can't be forced to fit our dreams no matter how long we've defended them.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Pleaase, point out the flaws

I happen to believe that batteries have advantages in some places, while fuel cells have advantages in others. They're lighter and more compact. They're efficient enough, but growing more efficient by the day.

[kristopher]

29. Efficient enough for what?

You are endorsing them for personal transport when the fact is that they are not the right tool for that job, not now and not in the near term future. You routinely gloss over the HUGE difference in infrastructure that the difference in efficiency mandates. That isn't a trivial point when you are concerned with rebuilding the entire damned country's generating capacity.

I included the other post linking to the MIT press release to indicate three things 1) the time frame for development of the technology you used was 20 years, not near term; 2) the lack of usable numbers regarding efficiency. The "near 100%" you cite to artificially inflate the efficiency of H2 process is a measure of what input energy? As near as I can determine it is the number referring to sunlight - there is no reference to the initial light>electricity conversion efficiency. Since this is a substitute for solar the cost/benefit of this stage is very relevant to determining whether the number you trumped up is the real number or not. Given these facts (and other unknowns about the process) to make use of this as support for claiming dramatic increases in H2 efficiency is nothing short of dishonest.
The 3rd reason I linked to the MIT original was to demonstrate the way your ee source had bastardized the information in the press release. It sounds like the same idiot wrote the article at the link in post #17 as wrote the article the other day about the palm sized NaS batteries. It borders on gibberish.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. "the fact is that they are not the right tool for that job, not now and not in the near term future"

Well, the first part is an opinion, not a "fact." The second part is contingent upon a definition of "near term future."

For you, 20 years is (apparently) not "near term." For me, it is relatively near term. I don't expect to see a fusion reactor on line in the next few years, but if you told me that we would have them on-line in 20 years, I would consider that pretty damn fast. Even if I don't expect to see them on-line in the next decade, I still consider clean fusion worth pursuing.


I'm not suggesting that car companies should sell fuel cell cars tomorrow. There's plenty of improvements to be made, in fuel cell stacks, in portable hydrogen storage… In short, they are not a viable product today.

Then again, I don't think today's battery EV technology is really suitable either. Right now, the batteries are just too big, heavy and expensive. The Tesla roadster is a good demonstration of that.

Yes, there are improvements coming, but they're not here today. Maybe EEstor will knock my socks off; my hunch is that we may be able to develop super/ultra capacitors which will be small enough to replace batteries. The fact remains, they're not here today.


That's why right now the market belongs to "hybrids." (They're a transitional technology.)


So, I maintain; batteries and fuel cells both have their advantages and disadvantages. You cannot dismiss either out of hand, and it would be short sighted not to pursue either.

[kristopher]

33. What do you mean "pursue"?

If you are talking private R&D, I'm all for it. If you are talking about siphoning off tax money that could be used to deploy PHEVs then I say you are wasting scarce resources we need elsewhere.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. The DoE has (in effect) said fuel cells not viable in the short term, so we have higher priorities

I'm OK with that. I wouldn't want them to cut funding completely though.

However, to imply that GM (and others) are involved in some sort of conspiracy, simply because they disagree with the DoE's assessment…

[kristopher]

38. That isn't what he said.

He said that oil interests support fuel cells because they are well suited to continued use of fossil fuels. I agree with the essence of that argument, however I consider it an obsolete position for fossil fuel interests and that it no longer has a bearing on research decisions.

The fossil fuel and associated industries DO plan strategic responses to threats involving their long term viability, the evidence is unequivocal and they would be guilty of violating their fiduciary duty should they fail to make such efforts. Using the charged word "conspiracy" is an attempt to delegitimize the opinion without addressing the substance.

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. (Naturally) I disagree

Speaking of GM's research work:

"Make no mistake - this inefficient, clumsy, astroturf "green" propulsion system is heavily subsidized by the oil industry. Watch for hydrogen pumps at your nearby service station soon, where you can buy expensive liquid hydrogen which is electrolyzed using - guess what - fossil fuels."

GM (to judge from that) is apparently pursuing this line of research not because of any actual worthiness, but only to benefit the "oil industry" to the detriment of the consumers, who will in essence be buying dirty oil thinly disguised as an "astroturf 'green' propulsion system."


If that isn't conspiratorial, what is it?

[kristopher]

41. "If that isn't conspiratorial, what is it?"

Using "conspiratorial" in the derogatory sense you prefer I'd say that since the article was peer reviewed, that accusing the author of the paper where the H/Battery graph was published with "fudging" his numbers so battery would equal exactly 3X H is about as close to tin-foil hat material as anything I've seen.

Search terms: fuel cell research Exxon
http://www.google.com/search?ned=tus&hl=en&q=fuel+cell+research+Exxon&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. More careful reading

If we're comparing the relative merits of fuel cells and batteries to store electricity the efficiency of the solar panels used to produce the electricity is irrelevant, don't you agree?

As for the article, once again, I believe you are finding fault with what you are reading into it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Why is it important to me?

You continually cite the figure of "3 times as efficient," as if it were Avogadro's number or something (some kind of immutable physical constant.)

Even when I pointed out that Honda had increased the efficiency of their current stack to 60%, you simply repeated your "3 times as efficient" mantra.

[kristopher]

That's right.

And in the context of the Physorg chart (which you've not invalidated):
compression > 51kWh x .6 (instead of .5) = 30.6kWh x .9 = 27.5 kWh left out of the original 100; or
liquefaction > 42kWh x .6 (instead of .5) = 25.2kWh x .9 = 22.7 kWh left out of the original 100.

Battery (without tweaking with the known improvements) ends up with 69kWh out of the original 100.

27.5/69 = 39%
22.7/69 = 32%

I'd say that 3X is just about right as a working number.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html


Bossel, Ulf. “Does a Hydrogen Economy Make Sense?” Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 94, No. 10, October 2006.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. OK, let's look at those numbers for a moment

Start out at the very bottom. Do you find it remarkable that the calculations just happen to come out to exactly 3? (i.e. not 2.9, not 3.1, but 3.0) to my eye, this screams "fudge factor!"

OK, we've already established that Honda's fuel cells are 60% efficient, not 50%. Make that one change, which I don't believe you'll dispute, and now the factor is 2.5 (so much for our physical constant.)

The "transportation" factor, as I've mentioned before, is a red herring. Hydrogen can be produced on location, either at your corner filling station or at home (anywhere there's water and electricity) it does not need to be produced in a hydrogen refinery (or its equivalent) and then trucked to the filling station. Actually, when people talk about hydrogen risks, this scheme seems like one that might give me pause. I don't think I want to be next to a massive hydrogen plant. Distributed production seems more efficient and safer to me.

In essence, wherever you were planning to charge your EV, you could refill your hydrogen tanks.

If we eliminate the "transportation" loss, that puts us at a factor of 2.0.


The need for compression is debatable. Personally, I like storing hydrogen in metal hydrides, which require http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/hydride.html">very little charging pressure. However, we'll leave that alone.

Nocera claims "close to" 100% electrolyzing efficiency. I dunno, shall we give him 90%? Does that seem reasonable to you?

That leaves us with a factor of 1⅔ (a far cry from 3) It also is not parity with batteries, but that just means there's plenty of room for improvement.


I have other problems with this diagram. For example

• If we were dealing with a solar array, that would produce DC, so, there's no need to convert it to AC and then back to DC.
• Why mention the "regenerative braking?" for the EV (presumably the fuel cell vehicle would use it as well.)

Here's something for you to think about:
Why has NASA used fuel cells for more than four decades (even though those early fuel cells were much less than 60% efficient?)

Why would they use them to provide "24/7/365" solar power on the moon instead of batteries?
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/lunar_fuel_cell.html

…

"On the moon, you would start with a tank of water. You'd use the solar arrays to make hydrogen and oxygen during the day, then use the hydrogen and oxygen to make electricity during the night when there's no sun," said Bents. "Ideally, if nothing broke and nothing wore out, it could run forever without being refueled."

The system is very similar to a rechargeable battery, but it can store four to six times more energy than a battery of the same weight.

…

[kristopher]

40. You have GOT be fucking kidding...

1) It is sheer idiocy to generically point to the use of fuel cells on the moon by NASA as some sort of evidence that fuel cells are the best choice for our personal transportation fleet. It is also relevant that the NASA article is about a PROPOSED PROTOTYPE that doesn't exist.

2) Claiming a some sort of suspicious coincidence in the multiple as evidence of a "conspiracy" against H2 is much more absurd than anything that has ever been said here regarding "conspiracy theories" and GM. It is simply fucking nuts.

3) compression 27.5/69 = 39% = 2.5X but liguefaction 22.7/69 = 32% = 3.1X.

As an exercise putting the relative infrastructure requirements into context, 3x is fine. Your challenges are so dishonest that they becoming overtly repugnant. I provided you with the original source for the chart, if you were serious about THE TRUTH you'd be into the footnotes in the original article to determine if they are valid or not instead of trotting out this endless stream ofhalf-baked bullshit.


http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

Tesla battery electric well to wheel 1.14km/MJ
Honda FCX fuel cell well to wheel 0.348

multiple: 3.3X

Then we have the fact that you are ignoring concrete obvious factors that go against your pre-determined outcome while aggresively pursuing a litany of loose "maybes" and "mights" and "ifs".

For example, the AC-DC Conversion & Battery Charging number is 5-14% too low depending on the use of assumptions such as you are playing with. Lithium has somewhere between 95-99% charging efficiency. If we credit your fuel cells with no distribution charges then you also have to give such credit to the battery. Did you?


I really can't fully express the revulsion that your tactics trigger. Where is your integrity?

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. I know, if I agree with you, I have integrity

If I disagree, I have none.

Your choice of abusive language as a rhetorical flourish does not strengthen your argument.


Getting back to NASA for a moment, I mentioned they had been using fuel cells (in transportation ;-) ) for http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/gemini.html">more than four decades. Why is that? (i.e. why did they not use dry cells in spacecraft?)

It's a simple question.

[kristopher]

43. It isn't agreement or disagreement that is the issue.

It is your self serving, deceitful manner of discussion. Calling it 'sophistry' is merely being polite; in the context of an academic discussion it amounts to nothing short of outright lying.

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. I'm sure you see it that way

The way I see it, I raised valid points, and you "lost it."


For example, do you disagree about the efficiency of the Honda fuel cells being 60%? If you don't, then (as I said) the factor goes from 3x down to 2.5x (and your physical constant goes out the window.)


And, you still haven't answered my NASA question. Why, did NASA choose to use fuel cells in spacecraft rather than dry cells?

[kristopher]

45. Hmmm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=205499&mesg_id=205739


1) It is sheer idiocy to generically point to the use of fuel cells on the moon by NASA as some sort of evidence that fuel cells are the best choice for our personal transportation fleet. It is also relevant that the NASA article is about a PROPOSED PROTOTYPE that doesn't exist.

2) Claiming a some sort of suspicious coincidence in the multiple as evidence of a "conspiracy" against H2 is much more absurd than anything that has ever been said here regarding "conspiracy theories" and GM. It is simply fucking nuts.

3) compression 27.5/69 = 39% = 2.5X but liguefaction 22.7/69 = 32% = 3.1X.

As an exercise putting the relative infrastructure requirements into context, 3x is fine. Your challenges are so dishonest that they becoming overtly repugnant. I provided you with the original source for the chart, if you were serious about THE TRUTH you'd be into the footnotes in the original article to determine if they are valid or not instead of trotting out this endless stream ofhalf-baked bullshit.


http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

Tesla battery electric well to wheel 1.14km/MJ
Honda FCX fuel cell well to wheel 0.348

multiple: 3.3X

Then we have the fact that you are ignoring concrete obvious factors that go against your pre-determined outcome while aggresively pursuing a litany of loose "maybes" and "mights" and "ifs".

For example, the AC-DC Conversion & Battery Charging number is 5-14% too low depending on the use of assumptions such as you are playing with. Lithium has somewhere between 95-99% charging efficiency. If we credit your fuel cells with no distribution charges then you also have to give such credit to the battery. Did you?


I really can't fully express the revulsion that your tactics trigger. Where is your integrity?

[OKIsItJustMe]

46. I see, you're back to repeating yourself again

OK. Have fun.

[kristopher]

47. Sure.

1) It is sheer idiocy to generically point to the use of fuel cells on the moon by NASA as some sort of evidence that fuel cells are the best choice for our personal transportation fleet. It is also relevant that the NASA article is about a PROPOSED PROTOTYPE that doesn't exist.

2) Claiming a some sort of suspicious coincidence in the multiple as evidence of a "conspiracy" against H2 is much more absurd than anything that has ever been said here regarding "conspiracy theories" and GM. It is simply fucking nuts.

3) compression 27.5/69 = 39% = 2.5X but liguefaction 22.7/69 = 32% = 3.1X.

As an exercise putting the relative infrastructure requirements into context, 3x is fine. Your challenges are so dishonest that they becoming overtly repugnant. I provided you with the original source for the chart, if you were serious about THE TRUTH you'd be into the footnotes in the original article to determine if they are valid or not instead of trotting out this endless stream ofhalf-baked bullshit.


http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

Tesla battery electric well to wheel 1.14km/MJ
Honda FCX fuel cell well to wheel 0.348

multiple: 3.3X

Then we have the fact that you are ignoring concrete obvious factors that go against your pre-determined outcome while aggresively pursuing a litany of loose "maybes" and "mights" and "ifs".

For example, the AC-DC Conversion & Battery Charging number is 5-14% too low depending on the use of assumptions such as you are playing with. Lithium has somewhere between 95-99% charging efficiency. If we credit your fuel cells with no distribution charges then you also have to give such credit to the battery. Did you?


I really can't fully express the revulsion that your tactics trigger. Where is your integrity?

[Nederland]

50. He does that

And even though I agree with him and disagree with you on this particular issue, his behavior is extremely annoying.

[kristopher]

25. You may want to bookmark this link

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/spotlights/a-recipe.html

A recipe for solar energy: learning from nature

For the past 20 years, MIT Professor Daniel G. Nocera of chemistry has been working on a novel system for producing pollution-free energy in real time without adding fuel. In his system, a tub of water containing specially designed chemicals sits in the sunshine. Gaseous hydrogen and oxygen rise from the water, pass through a power-producing fuel cell, then recombine to replenish the water in the tub.

Sound too good to be true? Nocera thinks not. While practical systems may be another 20 years away, recent events in his MIT lab suggest that his vision is not as implausible as it may seem.

Much discussion now focuses on a cleaner energy future based on hydrogen rather than fossil fuels. But where are we going to get all the hydrogen? The obvious answer is electrolysis, which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, the feed stocks for clean and efficient power-generating fuel cells. But conventional electrolysis is driven by electricity mostly made using fossil fuels, just what we need to get away from.

Nocera and others believe that in the long-term we must get our energy from the sun. Even if we crowd the earth with biomass farms, windmills, solar power facilities and nuclear plants, we won't be able to satisfy the world's appetite for energy in 2050. Yet the daily dose of sunshine on the earth's surface is enough to power our energy needs for 30 years.

Using sunlight to split water isn't so easy-unless ...

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/spotlights/a-recipe.html

If you come across an article that gives the total conversion efficiency of sunlight/M^2 would you mind posting it? I've looked around and it isn't evident. With that and a few other bits of some minor importance we might be able to actually determine if this process has mainstream value. I've gone through several MIT press releases and web presentations and so far there are absolutely no data from which to determine the actual performance of this process. That makes me think the actual performance isn't worth bragging about.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Please follow this link (I supplied it in post #17)

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900956

[excess_3]

48. where do you see, 60% efficiency?

link, or post #, please.


(electrical only) efficiency of fuel cells is typically very poor,
as they claim that warm water is useful output

[OKIsItJustMe]

49. I supplied it above

However:
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/fuel-cell-comparison.aspx


Added Bonus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX#2006_FCX_concept

…

According to Honda, the new fuel-cell stack is 20% smaller, 30% lighter and has a higher output of 100 kW (136 PS; 134 bhp) . The new powerplant is 180 kg lighter, 40% smaller in volume and has a high energy efficiency of 60%, compared with 20% for most internal combustion engines, 30% for most hybrid powerplants and 50% for the previous generation FCX.

…

http://world.honda.com/FCXClarity/concept/stack/index.html

The new V Flow FC Stack features a revolutionary cell structure in which hydrogen and air flow vertically rather than horizontally. Producing a high-energy output of 100kW, the new fuel cell stack is dramatically lighter and more compact that its predecessor, with a 50% improvement in output density by volume, and a 67% increase in output density by mass. Moreover, the fuel cell system is 65% more compact, with a one-box construction replacing the two-box construction. Rather than under the floor, the fuel cell stack is positioned in the central tunnel, allowing for a low floor and low overall height.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/fuel-cell-evolution.aspx

…

To develop a fuel cell vehicle worthy of the Honda name, our engineers worked tirelessly to ensure that the FCX Clarity was:

• Safe for the public
• Operable in freezing weather
• Able to drive a reasonable range before refueling
• Easy to refuel
• Sporty and fun to drive
• Spacious and comfortable

Each generation of the FCX Clarity has brought Honda closer to achieving these goals, and we are proud to introduce the FCX Clarity to the world.

Since the first Honda fuel cell vehicle was unveiled in 1999, dramatic changes have taken place in rapid succession. The fuel cell stack in the 1999 vehicle was very large and bulky. By developing and working to perfect our own Honda Fuel Cell (FC) stacks, Honda has made them significantly smaller and lighter. As a result, the design of the vehicle itself has also gone from tall and boxy to sleek and elegant with a roomy and comfortable cabin.

Honda has brought the fuel cell vehicle from the lab to the fleet and finally to the public. The major barrier now is building up the hydrogen supply infrastructure. We have a strong interest in this area as well and we are hard at work perfecting a http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx">Home Energy Station that may supply power to the home in addition to the family car. With these developments, Honda is paving the way for a clean and efficient hydrogen-based society of the future.

…

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!