« Buy a Natural Gas GX, Get Phill Free | Main | Rising Fuel Prices Crunching Mass Transit Systems »
Honda’s More Powerful Fuel Cell Concept with Home Hydrogen Refueling
19 October 2005
 |
| FCX Concept with the Home Energy System for refueling. Click to enlarge. |
Honda’s new FCX fuel cell concept vehicle, unveiled at the Tokyo Motor Show, is a stylish sedan featuring a redesigned fuel cell system that delivers more power and increased range in less space than the current FCX 2005 model on the road, and a low-floor design that maximizes cabin space.
Enabling the low-floor design is Honda’s new “3V” system: vertical gas flow, vertebral layout, and volume-efficient packaging.
 |
| The V-Flow system. Vertical gas flow, vertebral layout, volume-efficient. Note the cutaway of the rear wheel showing the in-wheel motor. Click to enlarge. |
In the 3V schema, oxygen and hydrogen flow from the top to the bottom of the fuel cell stack (vertical gas flow) and the fuel cells are arranged vertically in the center tunnel (vertebral layout) for new, high-efficiency fuel cell packaging (volume efficiency).
Compact enough to fit neatly into the center tunnel but robust enough to deliver 100kW of power, the V Flow fuel cell stack offers both space efficiency and high energy output. The key to fuel cell performance is water management. With vertical gas flow, an innovative process in which oxygen and hydrogen flow downward through the stack, Honda’s new fuel cell stack takes full advantage of gravity to efficiently discharge water formed during electricity generation.
By contrast, the FC stack in the FCX 2005 offers a maximum of 86 kW. (Earlier post.)
This improves system performance in sub-zero temperatures, achieving a new level of system reliability. The problem of cold-weather startup had been a key obstacle to the commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. In 2003, Honda solved the problem with the introduction of the Honda FC Stack, the world’s first fuel cell that can be used at temperatures as low as –20° C. The V Flow fuel cell stack, on the other hand, now delivers ultra-low-temperature start-up performance on par with that of a gasoline engine.
 |
| The 25-kW in-wheel motor |
The FCX-V Concept drive train features three energy-efficient motors: one in the front and two in the rear. The efficient delivery of this power through all four wheels and the low-center-of-gravity platform combine to deliver torquey performance and agile handling. The space-efficient layout also contributes to the interior efficiency of the low-floor design, eliminating the need to use floor space for motors.
Coaxial motor and gearbox. The 80-kW front-drive motor output shaft is coaxial with the gearbox for a more compact package and a shorter front-end.
Rear in-wheel motors. Each of the rear wheels contains a thin, eccentric 25-kW motor.
To increase the driving range, Honda engineers chose not to increase storage tank pressure, but to use a newly-developed hydrogen absorption material that doubles the capacity of the tank to 5 kg of hydrogen at 350 atmospheres. With the new material, the tanks supply enough hydrogen to extend the cruising range to 560 kilometers (350 miles)—exceeding the DOE’s range target for 2010.
Again, by contrast, the current FCX 2005 model offers a range of 190 miles.
 |
| HES System |
Honda also unveiled its current model of the Home Energy Station (HES), a home cogeneration and fueling system that uses natural gas to supply electricity and heat in addition to hydrogen fuel for vehicles.
The system is equipped with fuel cells that generate electricity (5 kW) for the home, and is configured to recover the heat produced during power generation for domestic water heating. The HES can produce 3 Nm3/hr of hydrogen. In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by some 40%, according to Honda’s calculations, the HES system is expected to lower by 50% the total running cost of household electricity, gas and vehicle fuel.
October 19, 2005 in Fuel Cells, Hydrogen | Permalink | Comments (148) | TrackBack (1)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/3408721
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Honda’s More Powerful Fuel Cell Concept with Home Hydrogen Refueling:
» Nuevas soluciones de Honda from Yopino
Honda parece estar tomando un enfoque muy interesante para el futuro ofreciendo sistemas de abastecimiento de combustible en casa como parte de dos de sus esfuerzos por desarrollar vehículos que utilicen diferentes alternativas de combustible.
En el... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 24, 2005 9:07:51 PM
Comments
Interesting development from JAPAN. Three hundred fifty miles between refils is getting close to what you get from a large tank of gas in a VUS. Wonder what will be the mass production cost.
Half on one third of that power and capacity would also be a good power generator to extend the range of a plug-in hybrid.
What are the Big Three doing?
Posted by: Harvey D | Oct 19, 2005 8:29:23 AM
Looks groovy but hydrogen produced from reformed natural gas isn't any more sustainable that what we have now.
Why not just run the car on CNG or use the natural gas to produce synfuels via Fischer-Tropsch methods?
Posted by: John Fisher | Oct 19, 2005 8:46:51 AM
Hydrogen will NEVER be a successful motor fuel.
Posted by: Lucas | Oct 19, 2005 9:15:14 AM
I agree that it is no more sustainable than what we have now. However, I think that this is a great step in the right direction. If systems like this were in place, weather or not they depend on fossil fuels, it will be a much easier shift once other sources of hydrogen become more feasible.
Posted by: Chris W | Oct 19, 2005 9:27:54 AM
"Hydrogen will NEVER be a successful motor fuel."
If we can find a cheaper, more efficient way of generating large quantities, I feel it will be a successful motor fuel. I dont think Honda and all the other auto companies would be investing this amount of R&D into something that would have such a short usage window. Hydrogen is there, it just needs to be tapped by the next big breakthrough.
Posted by: Mark A | Oct 19, 2005 10:05:10 AM
There are no breakthroughs coming in Hydrogen production. There's electrolysis, there's thermochemical processes and that's it. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to convert electricity to hydrogen. The result is a net exergy loss. The thermochemical processes either are just another way of burning fossil fuels or require high-temperature nuclear reactors which are no better at producing hydrogen than electrolysis anyway.
Posted by: Robert McLeod | Oct 19, 2005 11:11:32 AM
There are plenty of breakthroughs coming in the former of ever and ever cheaper solar power Robert. Cheap solar = cheap and 100% pure and clean hydrogen. The president of India recently gave a speech referring to 50% efficient solar using carbon nanotubes. You can see that speech here:
http://tinyurl.com/e2zxs
Stirling Energy Systems has been contracted for up to 1.75GW of solar power...all non-subsidized as it's available for much less than current peaking power.
Wind is now cheaper than natural gas and Excel Energy in Colorado is giving wind customers a cheaper rate now than gas customers for electricity. Cheap wind = cheap and 100% pure and clean hydrogen.
We are on the dawn of better tomorrow. Cheap, clean, renewable, and sustainable energy...limited by the innovation of mankind rather than a limited resource.
The new limited resource is the fusion reactor called the sun. If that ever runs out...energy will be the last of our problems.
Posted by: Jake | Oct 19, 2005 11:31:25 AM
"Hydrogen will NEVER be a successful motor fuel."
"There are no breakthroughs coming in Hydrogen production."
C'mon! You guys sound like the U.S. Patent commissioner who said in 1900 that everything that could be invented had been invented.
There have been significant breakthroughs even in the past few MONTHS in hydrogen.
-Cyanobacteria for production
-Ammonia tablets for storage
-Magnesium metal hydride for storage
to name a few.
And there's a lot of money working on it. Obviously, RIGHT NOW, hydrogen doesn't make sense because it comes from fossil fuels. But that doesn't mean it won't make sense later when it comes from biomass, or solar, or whatever.
Too many people keep saying "that doesn't seem like it will ever work, therefore we should stop working on it." The deal is: we have to keep working on it so we can find out whether or not it will work.
What if Edison or Tesla or Pasteur had had such a pessimistic mentality? Personally, I'm sick of it. Let's hear solutions or nothing at all.
Posted by: BlackSun | Oct 19, 2005 11:47:54 AM
You have to realize BlackSun that so many...have so much to lose. The oil driven world is a system of haves and have nots. The haves control the limited resource called oil. With it...they control the world. They will not relinquish that control without a fight. You can and should expect to hear all kinds of rhetoric about the impossibilities of hydrogen. I can see you've been fighting through them to seek the truth...and you should. The truth will set us all free from the bonds of oil. Enough hydrogen is already produced today...just for the purposes of making gasoline...to fuel 100,000,000 fuel cell vehicles. Stop making gasoline and 100,000,000 FCV's are driving clean. Total hydrogen production today per Air Products website FAQ is sufficient to fuel 250,000,000 FCV's. We can make hydrogen today pollution free from natural gas. That hydrogen would run in pollution free automobiles. Even when you factor in the greenhouse gas CO2...hydrogen from natural gas run through an FCV is still superior on a wells to wheels basis over a gasoline internal combustion engine. But of course with hydrogen...we have a choice. We can choose to not only produce it free from pollution and provide motive power free from pollution...we can derive hydrogen from water and also be greenhouse gas free. Energy Conversion Devices even recently got a $900,000 payment from Excel Energy to prove out it's methodology to derive hydrogen from natural gas without C02.
Posted by: YellowSun | Oct 19, 2005 12:12:28 PM
Whether the technology is fuel cells, steam, biomass, or solar - venture capitalists are accelerating the rate of discovery around the globe. A privately funded Swedish lab diligently researching an "ultragreen" steam engine took a laudable step earlier this year when they sought collaboration with a www. community of inquisitive steam engine enthusiasts and research scientists, a win-win for us all.
If history is a reliable predictor, The Big Two will not be competing with Japan. Which is just one more reason to put our heads together.
More reasons:
reduce the incidence of specific diseases through emissions reduction (MIT news office 9/9/2005)
maintain auto manufacturing as part of the US GDP
Posted by: KarenM | Oct 19, 2005 2:36:32 PM
Singularity in use and diversity in source! That is how you keep prices down (competition). Now which energy or energy carrier is best for the singular used energy? Both hydrogen and electricity have problems but I'd say hydrogen is closer to the finish line.
Forget about the CO2 for a minute and just consider the system wide efficiencies of doing things this way and you start to wonder how primative we will all look in 20-30 years.
Posted by: tim | Oct 19, 2005 2:51:51 PM
Two 350 PSI hydrogen tanks - I'm not looking forward to any crashes this thing has.
Plus - where's all this hydrogen coming from? I think we need to get real - we need either less cars, or fully electric cars with power coming from more environmentally sound generators - like wind or nuclear fusion. In second place, with electricity from nuclear fission and in definitely last place electricity from our current caveman technologies. And even if we go hydrogen instead of electric cars - we still need to create the hydrogen in a clean way.
Posted by: Rob O'Connell | Oct 19, 2005 2:52:05 PM
I'd buy one tomorrow with the HES if available. When you survive a hurricane's aftermath living on 100 mile round trips to buy gas for generators, this package looks very nice. BTW I love it when people tell me something can't be done. I continuously have to laugh at the guy who in 1987 told me with straight face that computers could never exceed 33 MHz because that was the fastest speed you could ever operate the bus. I hope he's still getting good "mileage" out of his 486/33. In 1973 we were also told that cars that regularly got 20 mpg would never accelerate faster than a VW Bug. My 1993 Civic got 40 mpg and was a great performer.
Posted by: Richard Lumpkin | Oct 19, 2005 2:56:28 PM
As far as breakthroughs in H2 production, some company was working on a way to use bacteria to do it? Plants do it pretty effectively during photosynthesis, so some nice green goo in big fields might produce H2 in usable quantities cheaply.
Posted by: GreenBoy | Oct 19, 2005 3:00:06 PM
You guys are really dreamers. Do you really think you will produce cheap hidrogen in the backyard? The same corporations that control the oil now will control the hydrogen in the future. We are just little ants that are brainwashed to consume and consume and consume. Just read here: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ and get serious about all this mambo jambo stuff with hydrogen and so on. Yeah it will be nice to have it but until mass production its still a long way and its all about profit. If the corporations can profit from this we will have it if not we will have to buy some bike's.
Posted by: KillUSA | Oct 19, 2005 3:04:01 PM
The two biggest problems with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles at this point as far as I can tell is that 1) they cost $1 million and up at this point, which few can afford and 2) Fuel cells still depend on platinum, and the world supply of platinum is not enough to replace the fleet.
Solve those two problems and you're a lot closer to making FCV a reality.
And of course, there is a problem of the imminent North American peak in natural gas production. The price of natural gas has quadrupled in the last few years, shutting down fertilizer production left and right. There's tons of natural gas in the world (Iran for example) but shipping it is very tricky.
Posted by: John Doe | Oct 19, 2005 3:25:44 PM
For those individual who live outside of the city restrictions, one can buy/build their own hydrogen cracking plant and run it off the household water and solar powered. Excluding Honda's home fueling station, there is one other non-petrolium based hydrogen, below the earth's crust. See:
http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solareclips/2002.05/20020514-8.html
Of course, the question is if those who depend on tax dollars generated at the pump, will allow individuals to skate on paying taxes. Not enough revenue means budgets get cut and projects get deleted. So when the pundents poopoo hydrogen based economy, one has to ask if it's technical or political.
Posted by: dammy | Oct 19, 2005 3:49:07 PM
The zinc fuel cell cycle has already solved all the problems h2 is struggling with. Zinc is roughly 4200 times denser than h2 and has greater energy density than gasoline. The "exhaust" is solid zinc oxide. An automated fuel cell swapping system has been developed that only takes 8 minutes. The swapping system gets around the problem of battery replacement as the vehicle ages because you only rent a power pack for a short time. Zinc's biggest problem is political. It cannot be made from fossil fuels so our bought off politicians ignore its many advantages.
Posted by: tom | Oct 19, 2005 3:49:42 PM
You guys listen to too many naysayers on Coast to Coast. You should pay more attention to the rest of the story George, Art, and Ian are encouraging. The world is owned by banks and oil companies who seriously want to murder 5.5 billion of us, including one (or more) leader of a certain democratic nation. They keep us from believing that there are alternatives and that a hydrogen economy is viable. The fact is that there already ARE people splitting hydrogen in their back yards with solar cells and using that hydrogen in a metal halide (read: safe) storage medium to power their cars. Someone did it to a corvette just to show that you didn't neet a teeny engine to be efficient. The first-cost is not cheap, but it isn't a million bucks neither.
The value of this new Honda car isn't that it in itself is sustainable, or cheap, or practical. The value is that it is a step forward. We cannot change to an H² economy without steps like this. It might be more damaging to the environment now. But don't be too short sighted. Greater demand for hydrogen will encourage more investment in new technology.
Plus, this is only a concept.
Posted by: C2Clistener2 | Oct 19, 2005 3:57:47 PM
Neither corporations nor governments gave hydrogen the characteristics that make it expensive, inefficient, bulky and dangerous to use. It's just the nature of the beast.
Practical electrolysis means throwing at least 40% of input energy away in useless heat and it's expensive to operate and maintain bulk electrolyzers. The resulting hydrogen will always be less efficient and more costly to use than the electricity from which it was made.
The common perception of fuel cell efficiency is an urban legend. The only fuel cell practical for use in a vehicle is the PEM fuel cell. If anyone can provide information on a PEM fuel cell that renders better than a one to three ratio of electricity to heat (25% electrical efficiency) under normal FCV operating conditions, PLEASE DO!!
Posted by: Don W. | Oct 19, 2005 3:58:04 PM
The problem is that we dont have any real resource to replace the oil. With so many things that depend on oil right now there is no real resource to replace it. Yeah we will drive hydrogen cars but maybe just a few of us who cand afford one. The price for a car like this will be huge because the production cost is not low like it is now on oil based cars. Yes i agree that maybe you can build youself a hydrogen engine (not sure because i am not a scientist) but how many people know how to do that? We should think that no material resource (like platinium) is not inifinte. So as soon as people plunge into hydrogen cars we will face a lack of platinium in the world. So get serious, these guys just want to get a slice of the future car market (if it will be one) so they all start building alternative cars even if they dont know for sure if they dig in the right direction. Why dont Honda guys tell us, Hey guys dont buy a damn oil based machine because you will end up growing flowers in it soon because the oil comes to an end :)? Because they just want to sell, and they found the right people, you who just wants to buy a slice from the future :)
Posted by: KillUSA | Oct 19, 2005 4:21:50 PM
Don W. is getting to the point I've been wanting to make to all those that believe it's the corporation and government. There is no efficiency gain from taking solar electricity and electrolyzing water to make hydrogen. You might as well just put big batteries in the car and plug in your 12V solar panel directly to the battery - that would be probably the most efficient way.
Unless someone finds a way to get more energy from burning hydrogen than producing it - OR - we find a large deposit under the Earth's crust (which I really dislike the idea of, and only the evil oil companies have the money and expertise to obtain it...), the hydrogen based economy is kind of backwards. Do you want more coal burning plants? how about more nuclear plants? Just to be used for obtaining hydrogen from water?! What a waste of electricity ... just run the cars off electricity then!
Eitherway - I like the concept car, I like the idea, it's a short term solution to some problems, and of course it'd be coming from Honda.
Where are the North American manufacturers? What have the made and what concept cars do they have?
Posted by: afxgrin | Oct 19, 2005 4:36:49 PM
Re: Hydrogen
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
Hydrogen will be a by-product of what looks like a very promising energy alternative (nuclear using a pebble-bed reactor). Two problems solved!
Posted by: Foo Bar | Oct 19, 2005 4:36:50 PM
Re: how about more nuclear plants?
Hell Yes! Again, read this:
www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
Seems fairly safe, from the article:
In a conventional reactor emergency, you have only seconds to make the right decision," Zhang notes. "With HTR-10, it's days, even weeks - as much time as we could ever need to fix a problem."
This unusual margin of safety isn't merely theoretical. INET's engineers have already done what would be unthinkable in a conventional reactor: switched off HTR-10's helium coolant and let the reactor cool down all by itself
Posted by: Foo Bar | Oct 19, 2005 4:41:54 PM
In a world with cheap electricity (be it from solar, wind, nuclear, etc.), then hydrogen is not useful as an energy source, but an energy distribution mechanism. Even if it is lossy to crack the water, it's still a win because the energy density of the hydrogen is much higher than batteries. Lugging around huge batteries is completely inefficient. Not to mention an environmental disaster.
The real value of gasoline is it's energy density. It has a density of 31 MJ/l. Nothing else comes even close. Pound for pound it has more explosive power than dynamite. Hydrogen can get around 10MJ/l. Good NiMH batteries get around 220kJ/kg which explains why pure electric cars are DOA.
Distributed gas to hydrogen generation sounds to me like a bad idea because it doesn't exploit any new energy sources and we've just moved the pollution problem from our cars to our houses.
Posted by: saylrboy | Oct 19, 2005 4:55:56 PM
There was a recent discovery of a solid pellet material that could be used to store hydrogen uncompressed in densities great enough to allow distances to be travelled that exceed gasoline engines. The name of the stuff escapes me.
Hydrogen produced through electrolysis where the electricity came from a renewable source may be inefficient, but we have nothing better. We need hydrogen to store such energy precisely because we lack the light-weight, long lasting, and high capacity battery technology needed for purely electric vehicles. Besides, the vehicle parts for both vehicles are similar except for the substitution of H, 02, and fuel cells instead of a battery. This means that development on either will further the other. Batteries add all kinds of dangerous chemicals that need to be disposed of into the mix.
If you are worried about the inefficiencies of electrolysis, then you better go outside and catch all the wasted sunshine hitting your lawn. Because that is all you will be wasting is a bit of either that or some breeze.
As far as electrolysis operating costs? Electrodes, water, pumps, tanks, and windmills or solar cells. I'm not convinced those things would cost more than having oil drilled, shipped, refined, shipped, and sold. This would be especially true if such systems were mass produced.
If you are afraid of high pressure gas, don't be. My girlfriend drives a contour that can run on natural gas. That stuff has to be pressurized something wicked to fill the tank. Also, those tanks are reinforced hardcore and that's why they can't make them bigger to accommodate even more H2. I remember mercedes was doing crash testing on H2 vehicles several years ago saying they performed more safely than gasoline vehicles in crashes over 55mph.
I'm sick of people spouting words of nay on forums about inevitable new technology. H2 is not something that can be kept in the hands of few luckily. Once the cars are produced, home filling stations will come. Those stations will likely be natural gas based at first. However, I would expect that individuals and private organizations will produce their own electrolysis stations for purchase. If oil companies had half a brain, they would begin converting fueling stations for the inevitable by creating renewable hydrogen refueling. I know shell did this in some place already ( greenland or iceland?). That way, they could still maintain some control and profit in the fuel market. Without their normal drilling, shipping, and refining costs, they could clean up with much higher profit at the pump and lower costs to the consumer. The oil companies would then own nothing but the non-exclusive means to produce H2 and the stations containing these means. I would buy their hydrogen if they did this for less than the cost and hassle of my building and using my own such system.
Posted by: The Man | Oct 19, 2005 4:58:45 PM
Even with all the expensive and impressive advances in hydrogen storage technology, it still doesn't come anywhere NEAR the energy density of hydrocarbons. And it's still way more difficult and different to use (recharge).
I don't understand why we're putting all these resources into this hydrogen research - it's not a good energy carrier at the temperatures we live in.
The great announcement of a 350 mile range with hydrogen doesn't sound as good when you realize that most of it is because the car is designed to be highly energy efficient, and an efficient hydrocarbon-powered vehicle of similar design would get more than a 1000 mile range on a tank.
The main problem with hydrocarbons is not in being an energy carrier, but an energy source. We need to get away from fossil fuels because they release extra CO2 into the atmosphere that was safely sequestered away in the earth. Solar or other production of hydrocarbon fuel would suck just as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as burning the fuel would produce, so it wouldn't be a global warming problem. Heck, we could even sequester extra CO2 out of the atmosphere and hedge against energy costs by putting hydrocarbons made that way back into the earth as strategic petroleum reserves.
Best of all, we keep all our same fueling and vehicle infrastructure without having to invest tons more into replacing all of it. But we also can take advantages of new and more efficient technologies (there are fuel cells that can run on hydrocarbons, biodiesel engines are much more efficient than gasoline ones, hybrid technology would work well).
Hydrogen just doesn't make sense.
Here's a great study in replacing ALL of the US's fossil fuel use with biodiesel from saltwater/wastewater algae using 12% of the land in the Sonora desert (CA/AZ border) for start-up costs of about what we spent on the Iraq War and operating costs of less than 1/3rd of what we spend just on imports of petroleum into the country. The technology is proven, too - it's been around since the late 1970's.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Posted by: RParker | Oct 19, 2005 4:58:53 PM
"Two 350 PSI hydrogen tanks - I'm not looking forward to any crashes this thing has."
Crashes in Hydrogen powered vehicals are much less severe because hydrogen is such a light element that instantly it dissapates. Petrol is heavy and stay on the ground, therefore making it much more dangerous. Tests have proven this many times.
Posted by: Michael Halagan | Oct 19, 2005 5:06:04 PM
Nuclear energy is a dinosaur. Kiss it goodbye, it's doomed. Not by the environmentalists, not by the nimbys, not by the non-proliferation fearmongers (although they all have a point). It's doomed by the hard-core capitalists who run this country. It's just way, way too expensive. That's the foremost reason why not a single nuclear plant has been built in this country in 30 years, despite healthy subsidies to the industry. Believe me, if they could make money at it, they would build it.
Download a free copy of Avery Lovins' book "Winning the Oil Endgame" (http://www.oilendgame.com/). It'll change your thinking on nuclear energy forever.
Posted by: saylrboy | Oct 19, 2005 5:07:49 PM
I used to despise fuel cells because I am setting up to become a diesel technician so I thought I'd be out of a job, but I believe that eventually fuel cells (with more power and torque of course) may be put into semis and other classes of diesels and replace its I.C.E.
Does anyone else think this will happen or will semis use hydrogen-fired internal combustion engines? Of course this still creates C02, but at a far less amount, and no NOX or other byproducts. Interested in any opinions.
Posted by: thatgreasemonkey | Oct 19, 2005 5:19:14 PM
Another quick thing, if anyone has any links to pictures and specifications on fuel cell or hydrogen-powered semis or other classes, please e-mail me or post.
Posted by: thatgreasemonkey | Oct 19, 2005 5:47:09 PM
Greasemonkey: hydrogen internal combustion powertrains are, and foreseeably will remain, loads better than hydrogen-air fuel-cell-electric ones. But they won't be as good as diesel, and a nuclear power station can make diesel fuel about as easily as it can make hydrogen.
The two pathways share a first step: make hydrogen. Then, in the straight-hydrogen approach, one must do something to the hydrogen to make it transportable. Liquefaction at very low temperature has been the only practical way to date.
In the nuclear-generated-gasoline approach, one gets CO2 from somewhere and reacts the hydrogen with it, producing water and hydrocarbon. Thus, one packages one's hydrogen for shipping by tying it to carbon. The buyer gets it in a much more compact form, plus he gets to burn the carbon.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan | Oct 19, 2005 5:55:05 PM
Wow, there is a lot of narrow minded people on this list. I love the following comments:
"Hydrogen will NEVER be a successful fuel"
"There are no breakthroughs coming in H2 production"
Two 350psi H2 tanks - I'm not looking forward to crashes with these."
Where to start? I like how the 1st guy emphasized "NEVER". That's a pretty long time. But I am sure when most of the oil is done (in many many years) that he may reconsider.
"No breakthoughs". Ah yeah, not even going to comment on this one. Since there are no breakthroughs we should just give up then.
And the final comment about the "two 350psi H2 tanks". Interesting comment as hydrogen cars have a lower probability of blowing up then gasoline cars. (Leaking H2 floats up, gasoline pools). This has been proven many times - you might want to read up on it. Also, the 350psi tanks are so well built, them exploding should be your least concern. Automakers have shown that a car with a 5000psi tank went through over 50 simulated crashes and guess what? The car and test dummies were damaged beyond belief, the tank was still in intact.
People should know the facts before they make comments.
I've driven a few fuel cell cars and they are great. True, they are nowhere near feasible enough to compete with internal combustion cars, but huge strides have been made. There are cars on the street. Advancements are made every day, and we are headinf in the right direction.
Remember that fuel cell cars are competing with internal combustion cars that have been around for 100 years.
Cheers.
80
Posted by: Adey | Oct 19, 2005 5:58:56 PM
Is it the big oil companies, or the arab countries that control the resources that is our enemy, hhmm? Are they on the same team, I suppose? Oh I thought it was the Jews who control the world by owning the banks. oh wait, its george bush and his 'evil cabal' who are going to enslave humanity so they can profiteer thru making weapons and perpetual war.
You corp-hating anti-capitalist weenies love to blame GW bush and his oil croanies, or scary large corporations on the world's problems. Oh, the solution is there, but THEY wont let us have it... so they can enslave humanity... I see. Whats the purpose for enslaving us consuming ants exactly?... help me out here. oh! I guess I am brain washed by Fox news. Just a dim-witted 'ant' told to consume consume... MMmmm hungry now.
Don't forget, we had horse driven carriages 100 years ago. Now awe have frikken space ships with laser beams. In another hundred years god knows what tech advances we'll have and all you conspiracy bafoons will be long forgotten. Instead of doomsday or an enslaved humanity, earth will still be here, humanity will continue to evolve and explore, and videogames will be so cool, you'll sh*t your pants.
the 'energy economy' is complicated and ties in with Earth's own enrgy cycles, & recources. Do you think hydrogen, or anything else will have NO SIDE EFFECTS? Everything does. When we discover hydrogen is poisoning the moon or whatever, we phase out hydrogen and move on to something else when it's invented. We adapt.
bottom line, honda is cool for putting so much into R&D as are the other evil corporations so many of you fear.
I'm done rambling now :) I think i'll go grab the metro and see wherre it takes me.
Posted by: scott | Oct 19, 2005 6:09:11 PM
I just wanted to point out that the article says the tanks are 350 atm which is about 5000 psi.
Posted by: James | Oct 19, 2005 6:59:35 PM
**** I want one !!!! This would be great sporting our company signage here in Byron Bay
Posted by: Julian Woolford | Oct 19, 2005 7:19:03 PM
Well, a hydrogen economy being green is not quite correct. Escaped hydrogen is damaging to the ozone layer. Also the gas one person said they worried about delivery to the home, is not gas-o-line but methane (aka natural gas). Good ol' CH4. The conversion to hydrogen and the subsequent heat generation used for the house hot water system, and also the use to power the house seems pretty reasonable. We already have large gas turbine power generation facilities. A home based conversion lacks the economics of scale, but avoids distribution problems.
Oh, and wind power is not so eco friendly. It destroys bird populations. The most eco friendly power generation source is actually good old fission based nuclear power plants. Less radioactive release into the environment and less health risk to workers and the community from mining to end of life of the plant than a typical coal driven power plant. (burning coal releases radioactive material into the environment. Not to mention helping acid rain. The primary eco impact from a nuclear plant is waste heat. If we reused it in a meaningful way, a tough engineering problem, they'd be even "greener") The reason no new nukes (though one is possibly coming soon to Florida!) have been built is cost, for sure, but not operating cost. It is planning cost. The paperwork alone is hugely expensive, and the "green" anti-nuke lobby has caused there to be excessive paperwork, redundant at the federal and state level. Pebble bed reactors are a modern design, yet to be implimented in the US that are even safer. The release from the three mile island "event" raised the local background radiation, temporarily, less than a visit to a granite basement in New England or a monument in Washington, DC. Really, folks. Nuke plants are safe if built and operated correctly. And ultimately cheaper. That is why the military uses them for carriers. carriers are already huge fuel tanks for the aircraft, the ships use would not be much worse. They have to meet tenders or dock to load supplies for the aircraft already, so nuclear reactors are just an efficiency.
Cool for Honda. I wanted one of the GE home fuel cells but applied for the pilot program too late. Maybe Honda will make things so I still can win.
Posted by: Tjp | Oct 19, 2005 7:36:47 PM
Nice concept car with promising performance and range.
I can see part of the puzzle solved here, its a concept car anywayz. This is a important step toward breakthru. With each concept car out we developed solutions to part of a main puzzle.
We cant solve all problems in once, we can only do it bit by bit. Before we learn how to walk we cannot run. The foundation, is very important.
I dont see investment in hydrogen car as a waste. I only see that investment in war and weapon is waste of money and blood and pure stupidity.
Hydrogen powered corvett? A pure waste, enough said.
Peace and Energy to the world.
Posted by: rexis | Oct 19, 2005 8:37:08 PM
What's that thing between the front wheels? The article says there's a coaxial motor and gearbox powering the front wheels, but it looks suspiciously like an internal combustion engine! Why not have four in-wheel electric motors?
Posted by: S Page | Oct 19, 2005 9:15:39 PM
Re: That incredibly beautiful Honda concept car:
Damn...I gotta get me one of these...!
Posted by: HAL | Oct 19, 2005 10:45:47 PM
No breakthroughs in hydrogen technology at all... Bah... How does direct solar electrolysis using seeded bucky ball catalysts sound...
Posted by: RMWB | Oct 19, 2005 11:58:30 PM
"Don't forget, we had horse driven carriages 100 years ago. Now awe have frikken space ships with laser beams."
I don't know about YOU, but _I_ sure don't have a space ship with laser beams. I'm sure THEY do, built with OUR money.
Ahh..If only we could cut ourselves checks out of thin air for billions like they do... then maybe I WOULD have a spaceship with laser beams just like you.
Posted by: Spaceshipless | Oct 20, 2005 12:10:51 AM
How about nuclear fusion ? We'll talk about after ten years ..
Think you all are too frightened, and not adaptable at all, too rigid.
Posted by: Soiuz | Oct 20, 2005 12:42:03 AM
RMWB, you pick THAT sentence to argue some kind of point? When I say "frikken laser beams", it means I am, at that moment in my ranting, just joking around. You know what
ok, maybe you dont, let me correct that:
"100 years ago we had horse driven carriages, today we have fuel efficient hybrids..."
there ya go, buddy. All better.
obviously you still feel threatened by the evilness of the big gov and corporations who want to make money off our misery.(thats a nice business model, yes?)
c'mon, maybe - JUST MAYBE - those wacky conspiracy theories are wrong. What then? wont you feel like a weeny? If we all get enslaved by Bushitler and his Haliburton-Enron storm troopers, we'll all kick ourselves for not seeing it coming. Had only we listened!
anyhow, it would be nice to keep out the scary oil company crap and stick to the interesting issues such as energy used to extract more energy, pros and cons of emerging technologies, etc. yes?
Posted by: scott | Oct 20, 2005 1:19:15 AM
OK, I have to admit I didn't read all of the posts; most but not all. So I may be repeating what some other brilliant mind already knows and has posted.
First, concerning fuel cells. Not all fuel cells use platinum. Akaline fuel cells do not. If you're interested you may go to www.astris.ca to check out a company that has decided to follow NASA's example.
Second, there is a company that builds hydrogen powered ICE generators. Their website is: www.hydrogenenginecenter.com
Third. A company located @ www.fuelmaker.com has a home refueling appliance called Phill. It hangs on a garage wall that can refuel a pressure tank overnight. In this case it uses natural gas. You'll notice the car in the garage is a Honda. (Honda owns a part of Fuel Maker Corp.)
Last, and I did save the best for last. The "manufacture" of hydrogen can be cheap and non-polluting. A Canadian company called Alternate Energy (www.cleanwatts.com) has the solution to providing hydrogen without the use of electricity or natural gas. When you go to the website click on "Watch Hydrogen Unit Demo Video" and you will see. (That is, your eyes will be opened) Also, there is another website @ www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h2ocar2.htm that also demonstrates that hydrogen can be released from water without electrcity. I don't know for sure but it appears that the demo on the spirit of maat website is the same process as the one at cleanwatts.com.
In summary, if you take the process developed by AEC and combine it with Fuel Maker's Phill then home refueling of fuel cell cars is possible and affordable. Beyond that, these two companies could do the same for gas stations across the nation at a reasonable cost. Since it is infrastructure costs that I believe is retarding the implementation of the hydrogen economy/highway just getting past this stumbling block will quicken the pace towards a final design - Whatever form that may take ie. Honda, Toyota, GM, etc.
However, pressurizing a tank in my opinion is not the way to go. Since AEC can generate hydrogen at will w/o the need for a power source and has demonstrated that the purity of the hydrogen is good enough to run a fuel cell (albeit a small one - Astris energy's golf cart) I contend that the solution is a small tank of water (insulated from freezing temp.)onboard in a closed system that provides the hydrogen from water in the tank and then captures the water after the two gases are combined in the fuel cell to return to the tank. If this is possible many of the problems associated with fuel cell cars disappears.
Posted by: Hellpilot | Oct 20, 2005 3:19:17 AM
No matter how viable any of these alternatives are we'll not see them as long as the oil companies own our government.
Posted by: Bruce | Oct 20, 2005 4:51:18 AM
Out of 10/20/2005 Slashdot.
Posted by: Harry Upton | Oct 20, 2005 5:06:36 AM
That's it. You're just giving up based upon your construct of reality. Tell me you're not adding to the wealth and power of the oil companies by not purchasing petroleum products of any kind and you have my respect.
Posted by: Hellpilot | Oct 20, 2005 5:22:48 AM
Back to the car for a second. Whats amazing is that its taking 80-100 years to develop electric motors in wheel hubs. Seems as the simplest of ideas. Ferdinand Porsche dabbled with this idea in a delivery truck or bus in the early part of the last century.
Posted by: Mark A | Oct 20, 2005 7:09:33 AM
Actually, from a Global Warming perspective, making hydrogen from natural gas (or even renewable sources like ethanol, etc.) does make sense -- if you contain/trap the carbon when you do so.
That is far better than spewing the carbon into the atmosphere.
Not to mention the improved safety of hydrogen versus gasoline in the event of, say, a car crash.
Posted by: Marc Mengel | Oct 20, 2005 7:21:43 AM
What is with these red herrings about platinium and the like. Let's educate ourselves a little about the hydrogen economy shall we?
http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E02_Hydrogen_Economy_Report.pdf
The issue is three-fold:
1. Source-to-Service efficiency. Converting electricity to hydrogen represents a net exergy loss. In fact the system is no better than our current gasoline powered vehicle fleet and demonstratably inferior to TSI diesels and plug-in hybrid technologies. Don't know what exergy is?
Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy
2. Storage. Typically it takes a big fraction of the heating value of hydrogen to get it into a stored state. This is the case for compression, liquefaction, and the solid state solutions. Even when in the stored state it's inferior to a multitude of hydrocarbons.
3. Chicken and egg infrastructure. No one will buy a fuel cell car without a place to buy hydrogen and no one will build stations without a market of hyrdrogen cars. You may not like this but it is a fact and it favours the introduction of biofuels over hydrogen.
Posted by: Robert McLeod | Oct 20, 2005 8:46:17 AM
I guess Robert did not read Jakes reply to his original post. In addition, the attached link is proof that "breakthroughs" are possible. Heres the link again,
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/advances_in_low.html#more
if the other didnt work.
Posted by: Mark A | Oct 20, 2005 9:15:30 AM
A lot of the nay-sayers here remind me of the people back in the early 1900's who touted steam-powered automobiles, stating that gasoline had no future.
Saying that hydrogen is "efficient" is relative. It may be "inefficient" to produce H2 at home using solar power compared to hydrogen from natural gas, but it's still a he11 of a lot more efficient than a gasoline engine, which loses around 75% of the energy it produces as heat.
Posted by: Brian | Oct 20, 2005 9:55:42 AM
"You guys are really dreamers. Do you really think you will produce cheap hidrogen in the backyard? The same corporations that control the oil now will control the hydrogen in the future."
This does sound a bit naive. If it is possible one day to have hydrogen "generators" in our backyards, I'm sure the energy companies would do every thing in there power to stop it from happening
Posted by: J M W | Oct 20, 2005 10:56:41 AM
So would you, if your neighbour were the one with the hydrogen generator.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan | Oct 20, 2005 11:41:49 AM
It's the physics stupid. Hydrogen can't beat thermodynamics. The thermodynamics are explicit: electricity beats hydrogen.
Posted by: Robert McLeod | Oct 20, 2005 12:12:42 PM
"You guys are really dreamers. Do you really think you will produce cheap hidrogen in the backyard? The same corporations that control the oil now will control the hydrogen in the future."
This does sound a bit naive. If it is possible one day to have hydrogen "generators" in our backyards, I'm sure the energy companies would do every thing in there power to stop it from happening
Posted by: J M W | Oct 20, 2005 12:46:10 PM
A true story about all the pessimists
and half optimists who like to throw
around words like "wont" "never" etc:
When Diesel was working on the forst
diesel engine many decades ago, one of
his assistants was doing what you guys
keep doing- sayng "it wont start" all the
time. One sunny day however the Diesel
managed to start the engine. Sure it
wasnt running smoothly, but it was running.
His assistant stunned looked silent for few
minutes and then said: "wont stop".
Posted by: Dimiter | Oct 20, 2005 12:46:55 PM
"The system is equipped with fuel cells that generate electricity (5 kW) for the home, and is configured to recover the heat produced during power generation for domestic water heating."
With all of the ranting here about heat being waste and exergy, I have to wonder if anyone actually read the article.
Posted by: acerimusdux | Oct 20, 2005 1:01:15 PM
"The new limited resource is the fusion reactor called the sun. If that ever runs out...energy will be the last of our problems."
actually, energy is always the "problem" in the end. no light from the sun, no veggies and no you! life = energy.
Posted by: Dano | Oct 20, 2005 1:26:24 PM
"Fuel cells still depend on platinum, and the world supply of platinum is not enough to replace the fleet."
QuantumSphere’s nano nickel process (patent pending) is expected to commoditise fuel cell catalysts by replacing expensive platinum with >20nm nickel droplets; just as PolyFuel’s hydrocarbon-based cell membranes are expected to make the whole fuel cell operating temperature issue moot.
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,66111-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1
Hydrogen generation while "lossy" provides a stable easy to transport storage of evnergy. While batteries wear out, are costly and heavy. The bottom line is get the fuel cell cars on the market in mass quantity and someone will create a hydrogen distribution network to replace the self generation stations.
However, I personally like the idea of having a 5kW backup power source for my house that also generates hot water that I can recover and add to both my home heating system and/or hot water tank.
I'll deal with using NG for now until a hydrogen distribution network is established. If Honda's calculations are even slightly off a close to 40% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is still a good thing.
I'm still trying to figure out if the naysayers on here work for companies whose livelyhood is based on oil, like one honest poster here repair gas powered vehicles for a living or are just simply posting to get a flame war going.
If Honda's FCX is on the market for anywhere near the cost of a normal vehicle it's going to be my next car.
Posted by: Nyle | Oct 20, 2005 1:53:03 PM
What a bunch of natterring nabobs! It's no wonder most are uninformed. You willingly make yourselvs so.
Posted by: Hellpilot | Oct 20, 2005 1:57:36 PM
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
Posted by: Smith | Oct 20, 2005 8:09:46 PM
People,
When are you going to learn that hydrogen is a futile effort? There is nothing you can do to keep fossil fuels out of the equation. So stop your bickering, and work with us at the evil...um...friendly neighborhood oil conglomerates.
Sincerely,
Lee Raymond
Exxon CEO
Posted by: Lee Raymond | Oct 21, 2005 4:30:04 AM
I believe PHEVs can and will sweep personal transportation in the next couple decades; all short distance (30-70ish) light vehicle mileage will go to grid-distributed electricity. I believe this will happen because electricity is cheaper. A little less than 0.3 kWh to push a Prius a mile down the road. That's 3 cents a mile at 10 cents a kWh.
And interesting by-product of electrification of all short-distance travel is that conventional oil and bitumen resources will end up lasting much longer.
The big players this century, in my opinion, will be fission, electricity and petroleum being stretched out.
Next century, maybe fusion and hydrogen.
Regardless of what eventually replaces the petroleum-ICE on the non-electric side of the PHEV, I'll bet the electric side of the PHEV stays electric forever. Electricity will always be our cheapest energy carrier. Why would people of the future ever quit using electricity for the short-distance mileage once they've started?
Maybe someday there will be such an abundance of clean energy that efficiencies won't matter. I suspect that day won't be in the next century or two.
IMHO
- Dave Barber
Posted by: Dave Barber | Oct 21, 2005 2:03:14 PM
Its all about energy storage. I am not into conspiracy theories. I dont think the oil companies are evil. Gas stores a lot of energy/kg because of all the double bonds it has in its molecular structure. I dont like using gas, but its just so darn dense with energy, and now our expectations on performance are high because we have been using this fantastic energy storing liquid. Lots of effort is underway to try and find a substitute (Li-Ion, li-polymer, NiMH, and NiZn batteries, Elemental Hydrogen, Hydrogen in alcohols), and I hope we get a feasible one soon. I promised my self that the car I have now will be the last gas car I ever own. I think a battery electric car with a low power direct methanol conversion (USC, JPL, Yamaha) fuel cell for recharging wile parked would be a good hybrid solution.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 21, 2005 3:54:49 PM
tim, R Parker, G.R.L. Cowan, others -
The tanks are not 350 psi (oh that they could be) but 350 atm. That's 5144 psi. How do you feel about it now?
Posted by: Bob Seeley | Oct 21, 2005 9:33:48 PM
Energy density for fuel materials is not a good indicator of its potential use in any application.
The efficiency of getting the energy out of the material is. Battery technology I believe is our best hope for transportation because once in battery form the efficiency of getting this energy out of the battery to the wheel is much higher than any other material and the potential is based on electric motor efficiencies which can be in the 98% range. I believe that newer li-ion technologies with the potential for several thousand recharge cycles, 10 times present power densities, very quick recharge and recycle capable offer the best hope. And home based fuel cells run from natural gas, and solar are a better choice for distributed recharge stations for transportation.
And I can invision road side charge stations recharging a vehicle in a few minutes. I would really like to see us rid ourselves of outdated fossil fuels, improve foreign relations, improve national security, and our environment all in one fell swoop. It is doable. It is feasable. It is our future and it is our childrens future.
Posted by: Bill Brooks | Oct 22, 2005 4:13:03 AM
Whatare the lates breakthrough in the alternative fuel ally
Posted by: Ali | Oct 22, 2005 5:36:54 AM
Right, Mr. Seeley, someone converted 1 bar into 1 psia. This has happened before in hydrogen enthusiast circles. Some still cling to the meteor theory, but the cratered ruin that now is the Moon is generally believed once to have been a thriving Selenian hydrogen economy ...
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan | Oct 22, 2005 5:47:47 AM
Well I applaud the whoztpa Honda! An no matter what, you solved a huge problem with Hydrogen Economy, and that is the distribution. If even a small percentage of us can make the fuel we need at home, thats what I call distribution. Thats one less fuel truck on the road and you don't have to pull into no st*&^% gas station, pull into home and filler up.
Posted by: WxFman | Oct 22, 2005 7:17:11 AM
Bill, your right to bring up conversion efficiency, not just energy storage. Fuel cells are just another electro chemical storage device, identical to a battery but you can recharge them by adding chemistry instead of the slow process of reversing the reaction with an electric field. The price we pay for the recharge convenience is low efficiency conversion. Zn-air electric vehicles use another form of battery that replaces chemistry instead of reversing the reaction, and are being tested.
http://www.electric-fuel.com/evtech/papers/paper11-1-98.pdf#search='znair%20electric%20vehicles.'
What is clear is that electric motors will drive the car, and we just need to figure out a light weight on board energy storage system to power the motor. I applaud Honda for working on such a clean solution. Using high power capacitors to capture more energy for regenerative breaking is a fantastic idea (insight currently only recovers about 30-40% of the kinetic energy back into stored electricity). So, lessons learned from Hondas efforts will help future electric cars, even if they are not hydrogen fuel cell powered.
There are many ways to store energy, and I am not sure hydrogen is the most practical or efficient, but it is also not exclusive. Any one could make it. Counties do not need to import it. There are not nasty chemicals involved or byproducts that end up in our water systems.
Li-ion, and more specifically Li-polymer batteries hold great promise, but for large loads their internal resistance reduces their conversion efficiency. Stanford used Li-ion in a car that they built that could go 1500miles on a single charge.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/solarcar/ev/version3.pdf#search='stanford%20electric%20vehicle'
Lots of options out there. Its OK that every one is trying different things right now while we explore technologies. Soon though it might be good if every one converged on the same technology to expedite a consumer solution and get us out of the fossil fuels.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 22, 2005 8:59:07 AM
www.theaircar.com
Posted by: asf | Oct 22, 2005 8:46:42 PM
Well, Im guessing we might could aford the installation of a home power source if you could get the local gov to give you a permit and find an insurance co. to give you homeowners insurance. lets see how do we write the policy you seem to have a hydrogen bomb in your home and it heats your water and you run your lights off of it. then when this thing brakes down on the road the car you could just ship back to Japan for sevice.
come on, corn is going to make it to your tank long before any of us need to think about posting any thoughts on this topic. your kids kids might be useing this stuff. but if your over 50 years old you wont see anything but two sets of pumps at the station.
buttwipe
Posted by: Ero | Oct 23, 2005 5:39:44 PM
bty you can buy the power system from this place. if any one does it let us know.
http://www.plugpower.com/products/howtobuy.cfm
buttwiper
Posted by: Ero | Oct 23, 2005 5:51:07 PM
Many alternative automotive designs have been proposed lately. Independent evaluation and testing are required to identify the most economically feasible possibilities.
IMO, the most likely replacement for the ICE will be an all-electric combination of:
super capacitors for efficient regenerative braking;
super nanotech lithium-ion batteries for high power densities (needed for acceleration & climbing hills) as well as quick plug-in recharging for short trips (say < 20 miles) - consider Toshiba's miracle battery:
http://www.toshiba.com/taec/press/dmfc_05_270.shtml
for high energy densities (range 300+ miles), ethanol can be reformed for fuel cells using inexpensive non-platinum nanotech catalysts like these from Acta:
http://www.acta-nanotech.com/
Posted by: Jay D | Oct 23, 2005 8:15:42 PM
Response on Hydrogen economy in Indian Contest
There has been growing concern about the depletion of fossil energy sources and environmental impact of using fossil fuels in the power generation and transportation and search is on for sustainable emission free alternate energy carrier for transportation to improve the energy security and also reduce emissions. Electricity and hydrogen has been identified as alternate energy carriers as they could be derived fossil fuels and also smooth transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources is possible. The use of electricity and hydrogen are currently being promoted around the world as the energy carriers in the transportation.
Alternate technologies for transportation in future
Action plan to reduce the dependence on the imported petroleum fuels and reduce the emission:
1.Improve the efficiency of present power train and reduce the emission by electric hybridization;
2.Develop hydrogen fueled IC engines;
3.Develop hydrogen fueled fuel cell power; and
4.Develop grid lines and battery powered electric power trains
Countries like Asian counires has substantial coal resources, however, their petroleum resources are limited and there is a need to explore the utilization of substantially present coal and nuclear energy sources for transportation in the mid term and to use sustainable energy sources like solar, wind, tidal and geothermal in long-term.
Electricity and hydrogen mix will be future energy carrier for automobiles
Asian countries need to explore alternate fuel path and alternate power train technologies to reduce the dependence of foreign based petroleum sources and to encourage the fuel efficient and cost-effective low-emission technologies to enhance the competitive advantages. Electric and hydrogen power train technologies have the potential to be such technologies. At present, electricity is used mainly in railways to limited extend, hydrogen does not represent as energy carriers in the automobile market, but market demand for electrical energy and hydrogen for transportation is likely to grow, provided, power train technologies powered with electricity and hydrogen can overcome the relative efficiency and cost barriers they face. The history of innovation suggests that this will eventually happen.
Highly efficient electrically powered power trains could be used wherever facility for using such power trains available; battery powered vehicles could also be used for shorter and limited use and hydrogen could be used as an energy carrier where electric infrastructure is not available and for extended range. Hydrogen can also act as an energy storage mechanism and energy carrier for renewable energy sources. Hydrogen and electricity can bridge between a carbon economy and renewable energy with an interim phase where electricity and hydrogen is sourced from fossil fuels. There is a growing consensus that the electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers in the transportation applications will eventuate. The major uncertainty is how long a transition might take and particularly when it might start.
To use hydrogen as energy carrier, like any other commercial fossil fuel, efficiency of several stages between production and end user has to be analyzed to find the critical area of research development of hydrogen technology. After generation, hydrogen has to be packaged either by compression or liquefaction, transported by surface vehicles or pipelines, stored, and transferred to the end user. Even if hydrogen generated on-site at filling stations either by electrolysis or by chemical process, hydrogen has to compressed and packaged before it dispensed to the customer. Precious pilferage energies (Renewable energy like wind, solar and wave pilferage energy) can be saved and stored by generating hydrogen and hydrogen can be packaged in compressed or liquefied form. Furthermore, energy intensive electrolysis may be partially replaced by the less energy intensive chemical transformation of water and chemicals to hydrogen.
In future, electricity will be generated from renewable or nuclear energy sources near consumers’ sites to minimize transmission losses in the grid and the excess power generated will be supplied to the grid. Renewable energy derived from pilferage sources of wind, solar and wave will be stored in the form charge in batteries or hydrogen. Hydrogen will be used as energy carrier in the transportation to reduce the dependence on the foreign imported fossil fuel.
In most cases energy consumed is in the form of electricity. Energy consumption in each of them is calculated taking the true energy content of hydrogen, higher heating value (HHV) of 142 MJ/kg. If electrolytic hydrogen is proposed as energy carrier for vehicular applications, a new infrastructure must be established and, in addition, the electricity grid must be extended to deliver power to all the active elements of the hydrogen infrastructure such as pumps and compressors, hydrogen liquefiers, and on-site hydrogen generators.
Energy mix in a sustainable energy future
A sustainable energy future will be based on renewable energy from various sources. With the exception of biomass, renewable energy harvested from solar, wind, hydro or ocean power plants is in the form of electricity. In addition, solar thermal and geothermal power plants will also produce electricity. In a sustainable future, energy demand and supply will be matched by strict energy conservation in buildings, by reduced energy consumption in the transportation sector and by the use of electricity wherever and whenever possible.
A combined electric and hydrogen economy will be characterized by a massive increase of electric power needs. This demand has to be met from renewable sources and nuclear reactors to prevent the GHG emission. The development and installation of wind energy converters, solar power plants, nuclear reactors and tidal power generators is essential for a sustainable energy future. Together with the rational use of energy, energy derived from renewable sources and nuclear reactors may be sufficient to match the reduced energy demand in India.
Well to Wheel efficiencies of power trains with various future fuel options
In a Sustainable Energy Economy, electric power from various sources could be used as such in the transportation by means of using electric trolley buses and trains and excess power generated could be used to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of water.
Energy losses at various stages of energy carrier
Well to wheel efficiency of CNG fueled IC engine worked out to be 24%. Whereas well to wheel efficiency of hydrogen (derived by reforming of methane) fueled FC power system is 27%. Over all energy conversion efficiency of hydrogen fueled FC power system is improved only marginally by 3%. It is negligible and gain in efficiency by reforming of CNG to hydrogen is not energetically advantageous.
Well to wheel efficiencies of power trains
Power trains fueled with hydrogen
If IGCC technology efficiency is adopted for power generation from coal, efficiency of energy conversion could be reached up to 60% and well to wheel efficiency of electrolytic hydrogen powered Fuel cell power train work out to be 13%. Where as efficiency of Fuel cell power train operated with hydrogen generated by coal gasification is 28%. Well to wheel efficiencies of Fuel cell power train operated, respectively, with electrolytic and coal gasified hydrogen is 13 and 28%. In contrary, over all conversion efficiencies of electric power trains in the electric trolley buses and trains used for transportation ranges between 49 and 81% which is higher than any other power train based on hydrogen.
Suggested modes of transportation for future with limited energy resources
Energy conversion efficiencies (well to wheel) of electric power trains are much higher than the hydrogen fueled fuel cell power trains. A significant quantity of energy is consumed in the various stages of cycle as energy carrier. Hydrogen as energy carrier is highly energy intensive. But, as hydrogen links the all the forms of energy sources (fossil energy, renewable energy), use of hydrogen as energy carrier in places (where electric traction is not present) traction with extended range of more than 100 km needed is inevitable and imminent. If the vehicle is intended for shorter time and used for less than 100 kM range, the vehicle may powered with battery. However, batteries have limited life and cycliability and needs longer time for replenishing the drained charge. Hence, continuous operation, hydrogen based power train is preferred than the battery powered power train.
Public transport (Future)
Intercity: Trolley buses, Trains - Electric
Urban: Trolley Buses, train - Electric
Rural: Hydrogen
Personal Transport (Future)
Urban: Battery (less than 100 km range)
Rural: Battery (less than 100 km range)
Urban: Hydrogen (more than 100 km range)
Urban: Hydrogen (more than 100 km range)
Use of power train with high well to wheel efficiency
Generated high quality electrical energy from the precious renewable sources should be used in the effectively in the transportation by means of using high efficient electric train and electric trolley buses for public transport.
Decision Options for a Sustainable Mobility in Future
Stationary applications
We will be witnessing many ways of storing energy in coming years. Electrochemical batteries based on oxidation-redox couples due to their extended life and sociability will have high efficiency of storing and regeneration of energy which could also be used to store energy for longer duration without any self discharge. Due to high efficiency during cycling, they are promising to be power sources for discrete power storage and grid independent power generation. Hydrogen, due its high energy intensive nature, it lacks to be energy carrier for such storage applications. However, it is ideal choice for transportation applications where redox batteries are not suitable due to their bulky nature and less volumetric and gravimetric energy densities. Recirculation type redox batteries are seems to work out well in terms of overall efficiency than the hydrogen for energy storage and regeneration in discrete stationary applications (Rural applications).
If surplus electrical energy is produced from spillage renewable energy sources
If surplus energy is produced from renewable sources, then the energy could be stored in the power sources based redox batteries and energy could be regenerated with high efficiency or en be converted chemical hydrides and stored for longer duration.
Hydrogen from waste nuclear heat and pilferage solar heat for automobile applications
Generation of hydrogen from solar heat, nuclear waste heat could be used effectively as fuel for transportation.
Cogeneration of hydrogen and power could be done with high efficiency using Integrated Gas Combined Cycle and the ratio of power to hydrogen could be varied depending upon the demand for hydrogen and power.
Specifically during night times, load of thermal station can be leveled by increasing hydrogen production which could be utilized as fuel for personal vehicles in the city during day time and public transportation in the villages where laying electric line trolley buses is difficult.
Hydrogen from CNG is not energetically much favorable
Reforming methane and generation of hydrogen does not seem to be in proposition as energy economy is not favorable.
Power sources for storage of excess spillage renewable sources
There is a need to develop batteries based on redox couples for storing precious renewable energy and regeneration when required. If surplus electrical energy is generated from pilferage energies then
Hydrogen could be generated and used as a fuel for automobile applications. For stationary applications, batteries based on redox couples is more attractive and there is no self discharge during the storage as the reactants are drained out of battery and stored outside battery. Hydrogen has to be compressed by spending energy and due to its lowest volumetric energy density, it needs larger containers for storage under pressure.
Due to smaller size of hydrogen molecules, they diffuse even into the metal and hydridization takes place. As hydrogen’s volumetric energy density is very low, it has to be carried either in large volume under highly compressed state or in liquid form to extend the range of the vehicle.
Other options for generation of hydrogen and preservation of energy
Electricity derived from pilferage energies like wind, solar and nuclear reactor can be used to electrolyze and stored in the form of hydrogen and can be used as a fuel. Surplus electricity derived from renewable sources can be used for electrolysis of water; converted more stable chemical hydrides (methanol, ethanol, NaBH4) and stored for future and exported.
Cogeneration of power and hydrogen, renewable power plants have to be integrated with grid and depending on the load requirements, the ratio to power to hydrogen generation in the gasification cycle has to be varied
In long-term, renewable energy is the only source of energy, it has to be used effectively and efficiently for utilization to the maximum extent. As there is a considerable amount of energy could be saved if electric traction is used for transportation and thus, there is a need for electrification of highways for running bus and train tracks.
Posted by: Dr.M.RAJA | Oct 24, 2005 4:36:29 AM
Dr.M.RAJA:
You have substantial knowledge about energy topics.
But when some nanotech products hit the market, many previous assumptions will be overthrown.
For example, you mentioned: "...However, batteries have limited life and cycliability and needs longer time for replenishing the drained charge..."
For example, today plug-in hybrid vehicles aren't very economical because the wear-and-tear due to deep battery discharging costs more than gasoline.
However, Toshiba's miracle nanotech lithium-ion battery is extremely long-lived: "...The battery has a long life cycle, losing only 1% of capacity after 1,000 cycles of discharging and recharging..."
Moreover, Toshiba also claims: "...The company's new battery can recharge 80% of a battery's energy capacity in only one minute, approximately 60 times faster than the typical lithium-ion batteries in wide use today...":
http://www.toshiba.com/taec/press/dmfc_05_270.shtml
As my previous posting indicated, the ICE may finally be replaced by all-electric power from Toshiba's battery (and there are other companies claiming super battery nanotechnology), along with ultracapacitors and perhaps with Acta's inexpensive non-platinum nanotech catalyst to extract hydrogen from ethanol for fuel cells:
http://www.acta-nanotech.com/
The day such a nanotech battery hits the marketplace, I have no doubt your energy recommendations, and the world, will change substantially (and, I assume, for the better).
Posted by: Jay D | Oct 24, 2005 8:38:16 PM
the information are vital and i want to know about it more.
Posted by: sreenath | Oct 28, 2005 12:33:12 PM
For the information of Julian Woolford there are no proven risks to bird life with Wind Energy. this fact is a false fact put out there by resedents oposed to the developments of wind farms in there area. i have a wind farm on the hill behind my place(i also work in the industry studying the effects on birdlife near windframs) and there has been no reduction in birds in the area. this type of electricity is the best/cleanest type of electricy generation available at the moment.
Nuclear? ha you gotta be kidding. right? lets not go into the waste that comes from Nuclear energy cause i could be here all day.
A wind turbine will replace the energy it took to make it within a year and can produce large amounts of Hydrogen from the electricity that it produces.
My only down side(tho very small) is the amounts of water available for electrolizing to make the Hydrogen. other than that it is the only way ahead for the world.
Posted by: Gunner | Nov 2, 2005 9:03:41 PM
send all information to pob 1046 Lapeer MI, 48446
Posted by: clark peters | Nov 8, 2005 5:29:49 PM
hey, why AREN'T the auto manufacturers taking hydrogen (or any other green source)seriously? I had a speaker come into school and he talked aobut terrorism, pandemics, and climate change, and now i'm kinda scared that we're screwing ourselves more and more each barrel of oil we use. I itnhk we should put more pressure on the auto manufacturers (and big corprations that use factories that produce emmisions, etc.) to stop using oil completely. I know that Oil is worth a hell of a lot nowdays, and that boycotting oilk would be impossible. but we seriouslyt need to do soemthing durastic...NOW
Posted by: Yuki | Nov 8, 2005 9:04:39 PM
hydrogen is good and all but i dont see a hydrogen powered car/truck being able to tow a 10,000 pound trailer so weather you like it or not gasoline is here to stay, atleast in part of the total cars on the road
Posted by: DUH | Nov 9, 2005 6:52:24 AM
"Greasemonkey: hydrogen internal combustion powertrains are, and foreseeably will remain, loads better than hydrogen-air fuel-cell-electric ones. But they won't be as good as diesel, and a nuclear power station can make diesel fuel about as easily as it can make hydrogen.
The two pathways share a first step: make hydrogen. Then, in the straight-hydrogen approach, one must do something to the hydrogen to make it transportable. Liquefaction at very low temperature has been the only practical way to date.
In the nuclear-generated-gasoline approach, one gets CO2 from somewhere and reacts the hydrogen with it, producing water and hydrocarbon. Thus, one packages one's hydrogen for shipping by tying it to carbon. The buyer gets it in a much more compact form, plus he gets to burn the carbon.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet"
So you forsee that ICE's will still be used on long-haul vehicles then? Good. I'm spending $21,000 on college to become a diesel ICE technician, I'd feel alot safer career-wise if Cummins, Caterpillar, and everyone decided to stick with hydrogen ICE's rather than go to fuel cells. I'd much rather not have to go back to college and relearn a whole new powerplant. Though, I would like to buy a FC vehicle, just with better range and a lot faster (90mph won't suit me).
Also, how can nuclear powerplants generate diesel fuel? and if they really can, would they be able to supply the billions of gallons needed annually?
Posted by: greasemonkey | Nov 9, 2005 8:14:11 PM
How? By generating hydrogen and oxygen from water, then reacting the hydrogen with CO2. If this had to be done today it might be in two steps, first making methanol and then polymerizing that, i.e. turning it into heavier hydrocarbons -- diesel -- plus water.
Are billions of gallons per year potentially producible? Resources don't appear to be a problem. If they were, or there were some other show-stopping problem, oil money wouldn't be so loud in denouncing the nuke. It wouldn't have to be.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan | Nov 16, 2005 1:12:31 PM
its my understanding that you can extract hydrogen from water and the by product is oxygen and when you burn hydrogen it rejoins with the oxygen and produces water the by product of which is electricity.
Electrolysis is just one process to extract the hydrogen from the water and you use electricity to do this.
Now the questions
Does this mean we need electricity to produce electricity, in that case would it produce more or less. Does this mean the only thing we are doing is making the pollution somewhere else then moving it around in batteries then making our clean fuel, when the only real clean thing are our minds.
That apart if we really only needed to move the electricity around, then what we really need is a way to turn the electricity we make with solar panels, wind, maybe even working out down the gym on the bike, rowing machine etc... These can generate the electricity which in turn makes hydrogen with Electrolysis. This means that we make the electricity, then hydrogen stores in ready to turn back into the raw material of water.
Its really a simple and wonderful plan, however too many can't profit from it like they do with fossil fuels.
However I think I'm going to buy shares in Fuel Cell Companies and I suggest you do the same.
Posted by: Marcus Bowerbank | Nov 17, 2005 10:35:33 AM
Does anybody have any idea whether the fuel vehicle car have a battery in the car engine as it is in today's petrol vehicle?
(p.s. I am referring to the battery in the car engine, not those battery used in electric car)
tks
Posted by: Rick | Nov 18, 2005 1:27:21 AM
Just to be precise, a conventional car engine doesn't actually have a battery *in* it; there is a battery in the vehicle.
And yes, the fuel cell vehicles will have batteries...ultimately, the FCVs are of hybrid design, you're just replacing a combustion engine with a fuel cell and electric motor.
Posted by: Mike | Nov 18, 2005 9:08:44 AM
I have developed three machine ideas that generate electricity and that use no fuel.
If I showed the drawing? I am certain you would agree that this statement is accurate. My goal is to have an interested manufracturer buying it. The idea is for sale. Interested parties can contact me at the above email address
Posted by: Herbert J Levinson | Nov 26, 2005 12:58:26 PM
FOR THE BEST INFO ON HONDA'S FUEL CELL LEADERSHIP:
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell
FYI - Honda President, Takeo Fukui, recently announced that Honda Fuel Cell Motorcycles will be leased beginning in 2009...
Posted by: PROPELLER HEAD | Dec 2, 2005 4:37:29 PM
Hello everyone,
I have spent the last two years working on DOE, and NIST projects to develop Virent Energy's technology to convert sugar and other biobased feedstocks into hydrogen or fuel gases. Sugar is a liquid at room temp. and has a lot of hydrogen. We also do the water gas shift to take the hydrogen off the water. We are starting up a 5-10kW unit in a few weeks that is integrated to a Ford hydrogen ICE and hooked to the grid. This system is completely "untethered" from any other energy inputs because it is so efficient. 20 gallons of 70% liquid sugar can take a Honda FCX 350 miles. Do the energy balance. The hydrogen ends up costing <$3/kg with today's sugar prices.
Look for press in January
Posted by: Eric Apfelbach | Dec 4, 2005 7:58:46 PM
Photovoltaic and photocatalytic cells are looking to be some of the most promising hydrogen production means. A photocatalytic cell can run on simple platinum catalyzed titatium oxide and produce hydrogen from waste water, such as sewage. The whole process is driven by solar power, and is one of the ways my research group at the Institute I'm at are looking into generating hydrogen as a replacement for the natural fuel economy. This isn't a change that will work overnight, as the planet is still too dependant on the natural fuel economy, but maybe 10 years down the line or so, this transition could be made.
Posted by: Ryan T. | Dec 8, 2005 10:15:22 AM
Connect the dots: Honda has a new proprietary solar cell that is 50% cheaper to manufacture. Imagine walking into your Honda dealer, and they ask, "Would you like your hydrogen from a wall mounted natural gas filling station at home, or solar photovoltaic hydrolysis?
Posted by: Bob Bath | Jan 21, 2006 6:16:14 AM
You should all know by now that the Hydrogen Economy is getting more real than ever. More and more H2 refueling stations are installed worldwide, not just in the California H2-Highway Network. More are more ways to generate H2 from excess electricity generated by wind turbines and Solar Panel arrays, and even more innovations and discoveries to generate H2 from other forms of renewable energies. And now, just recently, Ford has developed an H2 direct injection (H2DI) technology to run ICE using Hydrogen. Wow!!! and more Wow!!! Now, we don't have to wait until 2010 to buy Hydrogen powered cars-- It will be sooner than you naysayers think... wait you at the H2 pumps...
Be informed with H2 technology breakthroughs, and you'll know that the world is getting greener again... faster.....
http://www.h2fc.com/news.html
Posted by: H2_IS_THE_BEST | Feb 12, 2006 8:40:03 AM
I think there is an error in the database for this comments application.
The comments by "J M W" above are not by me. I think I posted a comment here a few months back but the ones above are not mine.
Posted by: J M W | Mar 2, 2006 1:58:32 PM
oops sorry those were mine...
the comment authors name goes below the comment. Not above it (I thought it went above it, it looks like it)
Posted by: J M W | Mar 2, 2006 2:01:11 PM
The H2A costing models and case studies have been updated to version 1.0.10. These models have tremendous industry wide input and a very significant and stringent peer review process.
The new case studies can be found here:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html
Current Forecourt Hydrogen Production from Grid Electrolysis (1,500 kg/day) version 1.0.10
= $5.88/kg
Current Forecourt Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas (1,500 kg/day) version 1.0.10
= $3.49/kg
I'll utilize the forecourt models because it represents the easiest and most straight forward deployment model for a hydrogen economy. It would allow for easy deployment of the "lighthouse" approach proposed by Shell Hydrogen without having to make huge capital outlays. Each new H2 station can be setup individually utilizing existing natural gas and electricity capabilities without any need to create large centralized plants, new underground piping, or long distance transportation scenarios for hydrogen. If large capital investments are made in this infrastructure for centralized production then even better economics can come into play in the long run, but better economics are not necessary...they are just a bonus.
If we utilize Honda's best selling full size sedan, the Honda Accord, and Honda's newest innovative full size fuel cell sedan, the Honda FCX Concept, we can find out some pretty interesting things. The 2 vehicles have very similar dimensions...
Honda Accord V6
- 191.1 L / 57.3 H / 71.6 W
Honda FCX Concept
- 185.8 L / 56.3 H / 73.6 W
The 2 vehicles have very similar ranges...
Honda Accord V6
- 354 miles
Honda FCX Concept
- 350 miles
The 2 vehicles both have some pretty decent power on tap...
Honda Accord V6
- 244 hp
Honda FCX Concept
- 174 hp
The Honda FCX Concept does have less (but still adequate) horsepower, but that will be somewhat offset by quicker off the line acceleration from the near instantaneous peak torque available through the electric drive system versus the internal combustion engine which requires 5000 rpm before reaching peak torque. Additionally the low center of gravity on the Honda FCX Concept and the 4 wheel drive system with individually adjustable in wheel rear motors will provide maximum agility in handling. If this is not enough, then one can factor in the emission free nature of the Honda FCX Concept, the potential convenience of home refueling, the superior cabin volume, and the fact you can provide backup power for a small neighborhood.
Now lets utilize these vehicles and compare the fuel costs.
Fuel Price.............Tank Capacity..........Cost For 350(4) miles
$3.49/kg...............5kg..........................$17.45
$5.88/kg...............5kg..........................$29.40
$1.02/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$17.44
$1.72/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$29.41
$2.40/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$41.04
$3.00/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$51.30
The price of gas must be $1.02/gallon to be price competitive with hydrogen from H2A forecourt reformed natural gas.
The price of gas must be $1.72/gallon to be price competitive with hydrogen from H2A forecourt electrolysis.
With today's gas prices of $2.40 per gallon, gasoline is 135% more expensive than hydrogen from reformed natural gas and 40% more expensive than hydrogen from electrolysis.
Source for Honda FCX Concept tank size, range, and other information:
http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2005/fcx/index.html
http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2005/fcx/index02.html
Source for Honda Accord V6 tank size and range:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001cartablef.jsp?id=21962
Posted by: H20 | Mar 4, 2006 1:40:57 AM
Everyone needs to get something strait about the efficiency of a large electroliser. They can operate at close to 100% efficiency because they are not limited in any way by the laws of thermaldynamics this Waste Heat a lot of people are talking about exists in such small un-noticable quantities that its almost not worth mentioning. However a fuel cell does give off a lot of waste heat, then again in a really good gasoline vehicle about 60% of the energy in the fuel goes right out the Radiator. Fuel cells are a lot better than that.
Posted by: Daryl | Mar 26, 2006 12:52:13 AM
I have all that straight, Daryl, and I know it to be entirely false. FCEV prototypes have large tanks and go short distances between refuelling stops, slowly.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet
Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan | Apr 14, 2006 11:30:38 AM
HIC will sound like a proper car (sports cars), todays ICE can be converted to it, it will be the logical step for the millions of cars on the road. hydrogen appears to have lots of sources and lots of storage options, and most of the earth is cover in it and it exhuasts water again, how prefect! so what if you loose power, hydrogen is being used as a battery just as oil is. i favour hydrogen atm as its not a harsh chemical like more batteries are. we have to just worry about the tanks and the hydrides etc, and as with a chemical battery we still have to work out what to do with power plants. i recon less energy by far is required into H2 tank then a chemical battery, and better in environmental impacts for the million/billions we'll need. tho i'm no engineer. its not just the end product or the effectiency of the energy transfer we have to worry about, its the metal production, chemical production, manfacture, raw materials needed to create the new breed billions of wheels on the roads. and hydrogen is in the lead still.
when it gets to trains and supertankers i recon H2 IC or biodiseal it going to be needed for the huge torque needed. IC egines are going to be easier to construct on these scales. tho i do think nanoLi celled cars will have their place for hippies and small city cars, and hydroIC/h2cell/Linano hybrids will prolly be the norm, get the best of it all. pulling the power from braking for small rear elertric motors ontop of H2 IC or fcell on the front is a great idea.
anyhow i think the BIG problem will be the airlines. can turbines run on H2 or diseal? guess theyll need to work on that. maybe well go back to props for a while.
i recon dieseal needs to be kept for the areas it will be needed if we'll only be able to make so much when the oil runs out (peaks).
i just hope computer production dont suffer. there are going to be products the REQUIRE oil. hopefully they keep some shale for that. i'm quiet keen to see how it all turns out.
Posted by: damo | May 5, 2006 12:35:13 PM
sir
as near about all the facing crisis petrol & other petroleum concept of water is good much more usable as concered to environmentas it is eco-friendly
& i am student of final year of B.Tech & i have submit my project synopsis. i think about to make model of car which use water as fuel so kindly send me details of car & its cocept
thanking you
Posted by: zargham | May 11, 2006 3:57:15 AM
Electric cars are a nice idea but revving a meaty engine vs elecric makes electric cars look rubbish
Posted by: Mungo Jerry | May 25, 2006 9:44:01 AM
the potential of this engine type will be appoved by marketing strategy and price acceptance in marke. It is possible in the near future
Posted by: Cherngchai Leewiraphan | May 29, 2006 12:26:22 AM
Well, there are ways you can save on your gas. There's a product that I've been using for about a week now. I increased my MPG by about 16%. Crazy! My car runs smoother than it ever did and quieter. I shift much smoother and my acceleration is more noticeable.
www.4-ecorp.com/mkoshko
Check it out and/or contact me. I SWEAR by this product. It doesn't matter what type of gas you use; diesel is fine too. I will ALWAYS use this product. Tell your friends about it and you can make money saving people money on the ever rising gas issue.
Posted by: Matt | Jun 13, 2006 8:19:19 AM
I am a fan of Hydrogen power especially for domestic on-site off-grid power generation. The only problem with the Honda design is that most domestic locations can't support the amount of space required for Photovoltaic electrolysis. I live in an electric only neighborhood. Over half of the residential US does not have a supplying natural gas pipeline. Add to that, over half of the population lives in apartments. Whether we like or not, most of the energy for automotive use will be coming from a distribution network of "gas" stations. The big question is what gas will they be selling?
Posted by: windowsjunkie | Jul 3, 2006 9:10:16 AM
FCXHonda2006-->2009 Fuel Cell Car Concept and Industries is it true or not? (Because of Responsibility in Security is not Enough for Honda's Products).
Posted by: Hanchai Sawangned | Jul 23, 2006 11:33:21 AM
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/67009/water_powered_car/
Check it out. Water electrolysis at the molecules’ resonant frequency,
There is no energy crisis only control, suppression and special interests.
Posted by: goat | Jul 29, 2006 11:31:16 PM
I m been flattered by HONDA by this innovation n i want to keep in touch with every new innovation of honda.
Posted by: Abhishek kumar | Aug 1, 2006 3:29:08 AM
I wonder how many posts are from oil industry people acting on their own behalf.
Fact: In the U.S., natural gas is very adundant, which is why Honda considers this a very valid solution for the time being. The neat thing about the technology is that the vehicle is independent of the source of the hydrogen, which is not true for internal combustion engines which are dependant on the oil industry in particular. Hydrogen can be created in mass production, or at the home, and eventually will come from different sources. This is not true of oil. This planet would be stripped of plant life to satisfy the U.S.'s desire to drive if we switched to using plant material to produce fuel, unless controlled carefully, and if we adopt methods of obtaining fuel from plant material similar to what has been done in South America, and not using our current model for Ethenol. But this still doesn't resolve emmissions problems.
Fact: Emissions are greatly reduced in the entire process of creating the fuel and driving the vehicle which is good for your health and the environment. If large areas adopted such technology, people who suffer many problems from breathing polluted air, such as those who suffer from asthma, would greatly benefit.
Fact: The fuel unit heat is used to heat water for the home, which has nothing to do with using the power unit to provide power to the home. In many places of the world, the big hot water heaters that the U.S. citizens are used to seeing are not used. They aren't as efficient. Finding other ways to heat water is a valid way of reducing electric costs, and once again reducing emissions from using less electricity.
Fact: Honda will continue to improve this technology, and manufacturers who don't open their eyes will be buried, just as many Amercian car companies are being buried right now by their insistance on making huge SUVs in hopes of large profits. Honda is in competition with other wise manufacturers, and they want to be a leader in this technology.
Fact: You would see a huge emphasis on this technology in the U.S. if we were not so dominated by the large oil industries.
Posted by: DB | Sep 13, 2006 6:07:58 PM
This would be worth apaying upto 200,000 for even for a little car and a generator. If it will ever Be that much or even more due to NA tariffs on anything not petroleum based for transportation. Electric Cars may not have the Rumble and deep throat sound of POWER, but the motors will out perform engine hands down and they are ever so quite. Whats better than Instant Power, a fast Car and Clean Air.
Posted by: PhantomBadger | Sep 13, 2006 7:03:18 PM
A little german company "BMW" will be selling the first Hydr power car within the next 13 months, also few more europeen companies are about to release at least 5 new Hydr cars stay tuned!
Posted by: elton Green | Sep 13, 2006 8:32:13 PM
Hydrogen is not a primary fuel. It does not exist anywhere on the planet as a gas pool. It takes a primary fuel to generate hydrogen (solar, fossil fuel, nuclear). So why bother?
Because hydrogen is a very clean burning fuel. And because it can be generated from many different sources using many different primary fuels.
I believe we are coming into an age were the global economy is essentially doomed. Global commerce depends on a abundant cheap primary fuel to allow cheap transportation of goods from "third world" producers to "first world" consumers. The passing of global peak oil production makes that impractical. As a single standard primary fuel source passes into history, multiple distributed sources will enter the market to fulfill the need for power.
Technology makes possible a vastly more distributed form of commerce than we currently use. But even in highly distributed, highly customized system there are certain items it makes sense to standardize and mass produce. In a mechanical system, these are things like nuts and bolts. In a transportation system, things like tires, suspensions, transmissions and engines will lend themselves to mass production. To have mass produced engines we need a standard, consistent high quality fuel source. The simplicity of generating relatively pure hydrogen, anywhere in the world, makes it the top candidate for the standard fuel for mass produced engines and fuel cells. The ability to produce it in your backyard - if you choose - frees society from artificially generated shortages inspired by politics or greed.
Current oil company inspired research into hydrogen production centers on mass produced hydrogen and long term storage problems. These techiques will be valuable for the delivering fuel to large customers and meet the financial and management requirements of large corporations. The real benefit of this research, in my opinion, will be the offshoot technologies that distribute electric and vehicle power production to local communities. These communities will generate the type and amounts of fuels that are appropriate for thier locale, from locally produced primary fuel sources.
Hydrogen storage is the key issue to be resolved. If passive storage is not practical, then on demand generation will be developed. Hydrogen production will liked be the critical intermediate step in the production of mechanical and electrical power from diverse primary power sources. It is important that this step be as efficient as possible. But in an analogy to the modern car - hydrogen is the transmission not the engine.
Posted by: Doyle | Sep 14, 2006 10:42:10 AM
There are many good energy producing solutions mentioned
with positive and negative comments...
But let us remember that there is not any one energy solution to fit all energy needs. The spread might stretch from bicycle to a motor home, etc...Honda has the right idea, in my opinion, to offer a power/energy package/source that powers a home and vehicles.... People's energy needs vary??? The energy packages being developed fit those primary needs..when the need requires something more than your primary vehicle can offer......rent that vehicle....??
Posted by: Ron | Sep 16, 2006 11:16:31 AM
Nuclear energy should be discontinued because 1) nuclear waste storage area shortage & leakage problems, 2) possible meltdown and 3) possible terrorist targets capable of causing major catastrophe.
The oil companies now have a monopoly which they are exploiting to the fullest and enjoying price gouging. We have had the technology since the mid 1950's that I know of where large cars, pick up trucks and probably SUV's could get 50 mpg. The oil companies hold the patents and don't allow auto MFG's access to this technology.
Our future lies with alternate sources of power. Honda is developing hydrogen cars (Others are also working on this as well) and a hydrogen home refueling and power plant using natural gas (or distilled water).
Another possibility is Tesla Motors INC (located in California) who have developed an electric (batteries) car capable of driving over 250 miles before needing a recharge. Solar energy companies have developed various solar film. One type of solar film is infrared film which generates electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This film could be incorporated in Tesla's car bodies (or other electric car mfg) to possibly create an electric car capable of driving an unlimited number of miles without ever needing to be recharged. This solar film can also provide all electrical needs for each home and business.
Solar technology, hydrogen technology and other new developments can help us eliminate the need for oil and nuclear energy.
Posted by: F. L. Schwoerke | Sep 16, 2006 7:09:01 PM
Please do not miss the point, that energy policy is always about thirty-years-in-the-future. So, if hydrogen is used as an universal energy storage medium for all energy sources, then the value of oil will loose considerable value, because auto's acount for about 40% of oil use. Given the speed of advancements in this area the value of oil in the future is no longer stable. Therefore, how does one even get a loan based on the future cost of oil as it is now. As for big oil fighting it I do not think one can fight market forces, or at least whale oil markets could not fight it when it was replaced by coal oil.
Posted by: Rob | Oct 23, 2006 9:16:14 AM
If Honda follows through with the 2008 FCX Concept to production - as illustrated - then they have created a highly marketable vehicle that will send a strong message to the hydrogen naysayers. And if Honda’s is really serious about addressing the environmental wasteland and global toxic air shed attributed to today’s vehicles, then they will push FCX technology to its logical conclusion – across entire passenger car and truck spectrum, and drop their dirty diesel plans, along with the eventual demise of the internal combustion engine.
With the 2008 FCX, Honda has not only addressed the infrastructure build-out issue associated with biofuels, but the HES III also offers the added bonus of a providing a distributed power source for its owners; reducing home electricity and heating costs by as much as 50% - if Honda’s claim is validated.
The natural gas connection with HES III is a problem for some; however, the HES III can also be powered by renewable energy sources, i.e. solar and wind.
I’ll be the first in line to trade in my Prius for the 2008 FCX. I been waiting patiently for Toyota to deliver a PHEV version of the Prius, but the promise of zero tailpipe emissions and sustainable EV driving in the 2008 FCX/HES package, trumps Toyota - and only if Honda delivers the hype.
Posted by: bbugbee | Nov 18, 2006 11:38:48 AM
wow! this page is long
Posted by: Lewis | Nov 23, 2006 6:15:28 AM
For you hydrogen doubters out there, and people critical of the non-renew-ability of natural gas reformation I'd like to point out some things:
First, this natural gas based system is meant as a starting point to get out of the "chicken and egg" supply, infrastructure, and distribution problem. It will not be the sole source for your hydrogen forever, but regardless note the fo