« GM’s Design Concept HUMMER O2: Fuel Cell HUMMER That Breathes | Main | Conformable Polymeric Foams for On-Board Hydrogen Storage »
Ford Introducing Fuel-Cell Explorer with 350-Mile Range
27 November 2006
At the Los Angeles Auto Show this week, Ford Motor Company is unveiling an all new fuel-cell powered Explorer with a range of 350 miles.
GM’s recently announced Equinox Fuel Cell—another fuel-cell vehicle based on an SUV format—has a range of 200 miles. (Earlier post.) Honda’s new FCX fuel-cell vehicle under development and targeted for 2008 entry into the market promises a range of 350 miles. (Earlier post.)
The fuel-cell Explorer prototype is part of a series of vehicles partially funded by a contract with the United States Department of Energy, and the first of the series to be unveiled to the public.
The fuel-cell Explorer comes equipped with advanced electric all-wheel-drive like the production model from which it is based. A center-mounted hydrogen storage tank occupies the space typically used for the 6-speed automatic transmission found in production Explorer models.
Locating the hydrogen storage tank in this area allowed engineers to design a larger tank to deliver the 350-mile driving range—the tank holds 10 kg of hydrogen at 700 bar. This design also maintains Explorer’s six-passenger seating arrangement and the cargo capacity found in the production Ford Explorer.
The fuel-cell Explorer uses a 60 kW fuel cell stack and a 50 kW battery to power dual 65 kW electric motors.
In less than one year, the fuel-cell Explorer has accumulated more than 17,000 miles, including a world-record drive of 1,556 miles in a single 24-hour period, the most of any fuel-cell vehicle to date. The record was set by Ford engineers at the new Dearborn Development Center test facility in Dearborn, Mich.
Ford will unveil the next vehicle in this series of demonstration vehicles in January at the 2007 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
November 27, 2006 in Fuel Cells, Hydrogen | Permalink | Comments (67) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6952955
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ford Introducing Fuel-Cell Explorer with 350-Mile Range:
Comments
Energy density has its advantages.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 9:09:46 AM
It takes about 60 kWhr to make and compress 1 kg of hydrogen from electricity (if being made by electrolysis).
350 miles from 600 kWh means about 0.6 miles per kWh (or about 17 cents per mile). About eight to ten times more energy than recent electric vehicles use per mile.
Posted by: clett | Nov 27, 2006 9:17:22 AM
350 miles from 600 kWh means about 0.6 miles per kWh (or about 17 cents per mile). About eight to ten times more energy than recent electric vehicles use per mile.
And batteries are free?
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 9:31:59 AM
He's just talking about energy use. The hydrogen could be generated more efficiently from biomass or using high temperature thermochemical production. Fuel cells, ICE engines and batteries all cost money.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 27, 2006 9:42:31 AM
I wonder how much further it could go if they scaled down the vehicle and the hydrogen system? Say, something the size of a Freestyle or Focus?
Posted by: Icelander | Nov 27, 2006 9:49:39 AM
it will be 20 years before there is any commercial infrastucture to supply hydrogen to consumers if ever...
Posted by: gary | Nov 27, 2006 9:50:25 AM
it will 20 years before there is any commercial infrastucture to supply hydrogen to consumers if ever...
Posted by: gary | Nov 27, 2006 10:00:47 AM
I am glad to see the smaller stack and larger batteries. I would prefer that it take CNG and reform onboard, but you can't have everything.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 27, 2006 10:25:56 AM
Question: How does compressed hydrogen compare to compressed air. I know 200 BAR scuba tanks explode with a force equivalent to several sticks of dynamite. So how does a 700 BAR hydrogen tank compare?
-Peter
Posted by: Peter | Nov 27, 2006 10:40:04 AM
I know 200 BAR scuba tanks explode with a force equivalent to several sticks of dynamite.
As compared to gasoline tanks and lithium-ion batteries?
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 11:05:42 AM
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid536.php
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 11:07:08 AM
Scuba tanks are metal, these tanks are plastic lined carbon fiber and are designed to crack a certain way if they are mechanically stressed so that the gas will escape like a huge fart, but the container won't shatter like metal.
Posted by: Erick | Nov 27, 2006 11:15:53 AM
How much is it going to cost?
Posted by: marcus | Nov 27, 2006 11:26:49 AM
I know 200 BAR scuba tanks explode with a force equivalent to several sticks of dynamite.
As compared to gasoline tanks and lithium-ion batteries?
Newer designs make li ion batteries safer than your D cells in your flashlight, not that regular li ion batteries have done much harm , even when manufactured poorly. I'm afraid the media is not a reliable source of reality. They exist to sell papers and advertising air time, that's all. It's also amazing how seldom a gasoline tank explodes. I've never known anyone who had that happen, even to those two I knew whose car was burned up.
Posted by: kent beuchert | Nov 27, 2006 11:33:33 AM
Newer designs make li ion batteries safer than your D cells in your flashlight, not that regular li ion batteries have done much harm , even when manufactured poorly. I'm afraid the media is not a reliable source of reality. They exist to sell papers and advertising air time, that's all. It's also amazing how seldom a gasoline tank explodes. I've never known anyone who had that happen, even to those two I knew whose car was burned up.
Wonderful. How many people have been killed in hydrogen tank explosions?
As for the media being an unreliable source of reality, I'll read to you what my laptop's battery says:
"Warning: Do not puncture or incinerate."
I guess the folks at MIT are unreliable as well, right?
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17250&ch=biztech
Point is: there's no perfectly safe technology.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 11:54:05 AM
Enova Systems(ENA) is big with Ford. Rumor has it, they will be putting together a big deal soon.
Posted by: t-bone | Nov 27, 2006 11:59:00 AM
Remember its for the suv crowd specialy the ones who realy need one or realy realy want one rather then a wagon or minivan.
A fillup of a current suv might cost 100-150 bcusk these days for a car that can go maybe 400-500 miles on a fillup.
Even at the high high cost of 11 bucks a kg thats only 110 bucks to go 350 mils on a fillup. AND they are targetting a final cost of around 3-4 bucks a kg for the fuel. And we know gas wont stay cheap long.
Oh and everyone missed the fact that suv is getting the equive of 35 miles per kg. Not bad for something that large.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 27, 2006 1:11:58 PM
I would like to compare the energy efficiency of this SUV to the SUT built by Phoenix 400 pounds torque electric pickup. It fills up in less then 10 minutes and is grid ready unlike hydrogen. It is on sale next year for 45000$.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4201003.html
Posted by: Johnny Upnick | Nov 27, 2006 2:22:24 PM
The video is good. The interviewer says "that means the batteries won't burst into flames...right?".
I still would like to see independant lab tests of the batteries claim to long life with deep charge and discharge cycles.
These tests should be easy enough to do in a short time and would convince lots of people that this is a real claim. This still does not answer how you are going to fully recharge 50kwh in 10 minutes. 440V x 200 amps would take more than 30 minutes.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 27, 2006 2:40:26 PM
Quote (by pizmo): "And batteries are free?"
Just like the fuel cell stack and hydrogen storage tank are free right?
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 27, 2006 3:17:38 PM
Just like the fuel cell stack and hydrogen storage tank are free right?
Didn't say they were.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 3:30:20 PM
Nor did the original poster whom you quoted say that the batteries were free.
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 27, 2006 4:27:20 PM
Nor did the original poster whom you quoted say that the batteries were free.
The original poster didn't do an apples-to-apples comparison. If you have a beef, bring it up with that person.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 4:49:20 PM
Pizmo, you're a troll; I wasn't asking about lithium or gasoline because I know how they behave. For the record, yes I'd much rather have a gasoline fire or lithium cobalt fire over an explosive tank rupture that will disintegrate both you and the vehicle. However, Ericks most informative reply suggests that the hydrogen pressure tanks may not suffer explosive failure unlike scuba tanks. So I guess that just leaves you with vast volumes of explosive gas to worry about.
Then there's the little detail that none of the Lithium powered EVs that are due on the market soon uses lithium cobalt. But that's off topic.
Posted by: peter | Nov 27, 2006 8:24:42 PM
Pizmo, you're a troll
Nice way to start.
I wasn't asking about lithium or gasoline because I know how they behave
You do? Then why wouldn't you know how hydrogen behaves? And why would you bring up its safety issues if the competing technologies also have at least as much danger if not more?
For the record, yes I'd much rather have a gasoline fire or lithium cobalt fire over an explosive tank rupture that will disintegrate both you and the vehicle.
That's nice, Peter.
However, Ericks most informative reply suggests that the hydrogen pressure tanks may not suffer explosive failure unlike scuba tanks.
Yes, that's what one discovers by doing just some basic research into the matter, instead of throwing out some red herring "concern" that's meant to diss a specific technology you don't care for.
So I guess that just leaves you with vast volumes of explosive gas to worry about.
Guess you didn't follow the link I provided for you. Guess you really like your red herrings.
Then there's the little detail that none of the Lithium powered EVs that are due on the market soon uses lithium cobalt.
So why does Tesla have a complex cooling system for their batteries?
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 8:35:04 PM
at 700 bar
Why not run it off of compressed air?
The Air car in France is pressurized at
4500 psi (300 bar). I am all for hydrogen but I have
yet to see a good way to store or produce it.
Posted by: bob | Nov 27, 2006 8:49:58 PM
http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burncompdm3.png
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 8:56:23 PM
Peter,
There have been research done on hydrogen tank fire in comparison to gasoline tank fire, and in every case, the hydrogen tank fire has the flame way above the vehicle in only one spot, thus sparing the whole car, whereas in a gasoline fire, the gasoline leaks out of the tank and all below the vehicle and engulf the whole vehicle. This is because hydrogen is so much lighter than air that it would floats upward very rapidly instead of lingering around and engulfing the whole car and its occupants. Thus, hydrogen fire has the flame high above the vehicle and would spare the vehicle. The reason the hydrogen flame is so high is because the rapidly rushing hydrogen cannot catch fire until it has risen way above the vehicle, spread out and slow down its velocity and has time to mix with oxygen in the air. Hydrogen by itself would neither burn nor explode. Only in the presence of oxygen will hydrogen combust.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Nov 27, 2006 9:03:22 PM
"But at MDI's grudging admission, the prototypes do not yet live up to their promised levels of performance. In fact, in the only published road test to date, one of the cars traveled a little over seven kilometers (4.5 miles) on a full tank of air. With the proper materials and a few refinements, MDI insists it will go much farther."
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,60427,00.html
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 9:09:35 PM
Thanks, pizmo, for the link to the picture which illustrates my point regarding H2 safety.
And, indeed, "the aircar" is dead. Much hypes or hoax and not much else. Air is much heavier than H2 and compressed air contains very little energy in comparison to H2.
Bob,
H2 can be efficiently produced from biomass or coal gasification, high temp electrolysis or thermochemical production. H2 can be efficently stored in compressed form in carbon-fiber tank, wherein the energy spent in compressing the H2 can be recuperated when the high-pressure H2 is decompressed via an expander motor, kinda like the air motor in "the aircar". H2 should be produced and consumed within the same city, and this will reduce the energy necessary to transport this fuel to ~1%-1.5% of its total energy content. This is far better than electrical transmission which suffers ~8% loss via transformers and power line resistance.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Nov 27, 2006 9:35:17 PM
Roger, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.
I asked about safety cause I genuinely don't know how hydrogen under pressure behaves compared to say, scuba tanks. It is a valid concern but I guess asking about things you don't know is not acceptable in pizmos eyes, that is rather sad.
Regarding Tesla, several cars have now made it through crash testing with full battery packs and no failures.
Posted by: peter | Nov 27, 2006 10:39:48 PM
It is a valid concern but I guess asking about things you don't know is not acceptable in pizmos eyes, that is rather sad.
Please. We see the same sort of things applied to hybrids (eg, "The EMTs will be electrocuted!"), biodiesel (eg, "We'll starve the poor children in Chad!"), EVs (eg, "The power grid will black out!").
You have your technological preference, and instead of simply stating where you stand, you put forth an objection in the form of a naive question, one which could easily be addressed by doing a simple search. Add to that that after people (including myself) gave you references that addressed your safety question, you persisted - and added on with namecalling ("you're a troll").
So save the drama for someone who's gullible.
Regarding Tesla, several cars have now made it through crash testing with full battery packs and no failures.
I didn't say they were unsafe. What I said is that all the current mobile power options for vehicles have safety issues on some levels, and lithium-ion in particular is very dangerous under certain circumstances -- hence the need for Tesla to build special cooling mechanisms for the large array in their vehicle.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 10:58:02 PM
As I have actauly been in a h2 fire I can say its onre HELL of alot safer the a gas fire. Its a very cool flame and it doesnt last long. Also h2 RAPISLY rises so for the most part it fooms above you not on you.
Most people dont remember or know that most of the people that died in the hindegberg crash didnt die from the fire they died from the fall or from the blmp falling on them. The ones that did die from the fire mostly died not from the h2 burning but from all the extremely fmalable junk that was on the blimp.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 28, 2006 3:51:59 AM
Ok, so with this Fuel-Cell Explorer;
How much of that 10kg of hydrogen is still there after a week?
What is the expected life of the fuel tank?
What is the expected life of the fuel cell?
How much does it cost?
If there are positive answers to all these questions then that's great but anybody who says manufacturing "green" hydrogen is more efficient than using renewable energy in PHEV's or BEV's hasn't done their homework.
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Nov 28, 2006 4:31:37 AM
It's 2010 and as a result of several unforseen miracles (including the discovery of a mountain made entirely of platinum), the Ford Explorer fuel cell vehicle appears on the market at a similar cost to its plug-in counterpart.
You ask the salesman, how much does it cost to fill up the fuel cell vehicle? At $6 per kg hydrogen, about $60.
And how much to fill up the electric version? At 10 cents per kWh, $10.
My point is, ignoring all the other issues of hydrogen, how can an H2 vehicle ever compete on fuel costs with an EV or PHEV?
Posted by: clett | Nov 28, 2006 4:37:53 AM
How much of that 10kg of hydrogen is still there after a week?
I don't know. How much?
What is the expected life of the fuel tank?
I don't know. How long? I'm guess a heck of a lot longer than a battery.
What is the expected life of the fuel cell?
I don't know. How long?
How much does it cost?
How much does what cost?
Here's a question for you - how many highway-usable BEV automobiles were sold in 2004 and 2005 in the US?
but anybody who says manufacturing "green" hydrogen is more efficient than using renewable energy in PHEV's or BEV's hasn't done their homework.
Technology changes and improves. Kind of the reason we all come to this site, right? To keep abreast of those changes.
=====
You ask the salesman, how much does it cost to fill up the fuel cell vehicle? At $6 per kg hydrogen, about $60.
GE just reported they've gotten it down to $3/kg.
And how much to fill up the electric version? At 10 cents per kWh, $10.
Where is this 100 kWh in 5 minutes "filling" technology by 2010? Where is this fantasy "affordable" BEV by 2010?
My point is, ignoring all the other issues of hydrogen, how can an H2 vehicle ever compete on fuel costs with an EV or PHEV?
Fuel costs are not a major cost category for new vehicles, especially when it comes to BEVs. Electricity may be "cheap", but if you need a $100,000 vehicle and 5 hour recharge times, then it's really not relevant.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 7:24:14 AM
You can buy, off the shelf, TODAY LiIon batteries that are safe (fireproof) and recharge in 10 minutes. Unlike fuel cells, these are not prototypes or development cells, they're being mass manufactured in China right now. (A123 cells, currently used in DeWalt tools).
As for the cost of lithium-ion, please take a look at this in depth cost analysis of lithium-ion:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf
The current wholesale cost of LiIon production is $230 per kWh. (Page 34, 18650 containing 8 Wh), but that's set to fall with the newer chemistries and increasing cell size.
A 60-mile electric range PHEV would therefore have a 12 kWh pack ($2,800) and small ICE ($2,000) for a $6k powertrain all in.
That's less than the cost of the platinum alone in a fuel cell vehicle (150 grammes at today's price of $42 per gramme, which would increase dramatically if fuel cells became widely manufactured).
The FCV will also be much more expensive to buy than the equivalent PHEV.
Posted by: clett | Nov 28, 2006 8:02:31 AM
You can buy, off the shelf, TODAY LiIon batteries that are safe (fireproof) and recharge in 10 minutes. Unlike fuel cells, these are not prototypes or development cells, they're being mass manufactured in China right now. (A123 cells, currently used in DeWalt tools).
Where exactly is this "shelf"? And where are those batteries in actual highway-usable vehicles?
As for the cost of lithium-ion, please take a look at this in depth cost analysis of lithium-ion:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf
The current wholesale cost of LiIon production is $230 per kWh. (Page 34, 18650 containing 8 Wh), but that's set to fall with the newer chemistries and increasing cell size.
I don't know if you should be using a report from 2000 to estimate current prices. Going to Froogle, I found the cheapest 18650 cell at $8.49 (3.6 V, 2.4 Ah = 8.64 Wh). That comes to $982.64 per kWh retail. Even with a 100% markup, that's about $490/kWh.
A 60-mile electric range PHEV would therefore have a 12 kWh pack ($2,800) and small ICE ($2,000) for a $6k powertrain all in.
Yet no one's building anything anywhere near that cost at this point. Hymotion offers their L5 Prius conversion for roughly $9,500 installed for a 5 kWh pack with a recharge time of at least 4 hours. Their warranty is for 800 cycles, or roughly two years, and voids the vehicle manufacturer's warranty.
http://www.hymotion.com/faq.htm
http://www.hymotion.com/pdf/Specs_PHEV_L5.pdf
Forgetting the huge economic risk of voiding your vehicle's warranty, the installed consumer cost of an actual PHEV add-on is $1,900/kWh -- a far cry from $230/kWh (off by a factor of over 8).
The FCV will also be much more expensive to buy than the equivalent PHEV.
Since it's all vaporware, you're just guessing.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 8:39:54 AM
Uh you do know that in the end most of the designs of fuel cell cars basicaly make them phev with a fuell cell instead of a little ice engine...
So in the end all the bonuses of cheap electricity costs are shared by the fuel cell car.
As for h2 losses over a week. its been cut masisvely from what it used to be and they are impriveing it every new generation. Mind you I remember the bad old days when a car left in the long term parking of a airport could be counted on to have evapped many gallons.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 28, 2006 9:53:05 AM
Great, now put it into a 3000lb passenger car instead of a 5000lb SUV.
Posted by: Jeff | Nov 28, 2006 9:58:24 AM
Even better to put it into a 2700lb passenger car or sub 4000lb SUV (if it must be a SUV body style).
Comparing the labor costs for installing aftermarket equipment is a far cry from the labor costs of components installed at a factory (if you like to keep it apples to apples that is).
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 28, 2006 10:13:01 AM
Comparing the labor costs for installing aftermarket equipment is a far cry from the labor costs of components installed at a factory (if you like to keep it apples to apples that is).
OK, here's those apples.
Lotus Elise = $43,000
Electric Lotus Elise (aka Tesla Roadster) = $100,000
That's a $57,000 (+133%) premium for an electric version.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 10:26:22 AM
A CD player in 1980 cost $1,000. Thanks to the early adopters, now you can buy one for $10.
Why would you imagine that the early market costs of an electric vehicle would be any different?
After the early adopters have bought their toys, the tech will filter down to us. Imagine how much you'd have to pay for a catalytic converter and electronic fuel injection in 1975. Ten years later and it's low cost and everywhere.
(By the way the RAV4 EVs with old-skool NiMH batteries are still on the roads today with >120,000 miles and no sign of battery degradation.)
Posted by: clett | Nov 28, 2006 10:46:41 AM
A CD player in 1980 cost $1,000. Thanks to the early adopters, now you can buy one for $10.
Not everything can reduce costs that dramatically. Certainly not an automobile.
Why would you imagine that the early market costs of an electric vehicle would be any different?
Electric vehicles have been around pretty much as long as automobiles have been around. They're not a new technology.
After the early adopters have bought their toys, the tech will filter down to us. Imagine how much you'd have to pay for a catalytic converter and electronic fuel injection in 1975. Ten years later and it's low cost and everywhere.
That generalization doesn't mesh with EVs. Six years ago, there were around 12,000 highway-usable EV automobiles sold. The past 2 years, exactly one sold. That is going backwards, not forward, and the price of the one sold in 2005 is MUCH higher than the ones sold several years ago. What you're describing MAY happen, but it's not certain that it WILL happen.
By the way the RAV4 EVs with old-skool NiMH batteries are still on the roads today with >120,000 miles and no sign of battery degradation.)
All of them? My understanding is that most of the ZEV-mandate EVs have been put to the crusher.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 10:53:03 AM
CD Player price reduction is due to the reliance on discrete components (D to A, processing, laser diodes, etc). Unfortunately, a high percentage of the price premium in an electric vehicle is the cost of the battery. Advances in the ability to miniaturize transistors (e.g. LSI to VLSI) and refine processes to allow more use of a given area of silicon are still able to exceed advances in the chemistry of batteries.
I could imagine the power control electronics dropping in price that dramatically in a similar time frame due to the numerous types of vehicles employing them (fuel cell, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery electric vehicle), but the batteries will be more difficult to achieve a similar scaling of costs (just as high pressure tanks and fuel cells will have difficulty scaling costs down as fast as the electronics).
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 28, 2006 11:31:45 AM
Why not just build an ethanol powered hydraulic hybrid?
Posted by: J | Nov 28, 2006 12:04:08 PM
You're exactly right, Patrick. There's basic material cost limitations - the same sort of thing which hampers cost improvements for things like photovoltaics.
One thing I know for sure is that most of us can't even imagine the directions technologies and innovations will turn, yet so many of us act like we've got the whole future mapped out.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 12:38:07 PM
One problem with lith ion is its already suposedly very very near its limit. This means even a trillion dollar into lith ion itselr wont make a battery car that can handle even 20% of car needs. They need a new battery better then lith ion. And the problem is they dont expect to get it any time soon.
So they go around it with fuel cells and untra caps and whatnot. Using the battery for hat its good at using the fuel cell for what its good at and using untra caps for what they are good at.
The combo SHOULD ake for a rather useful car. One that can do everything a current car can.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 28, 2006 5:25:12 PM
pizmo said;
"Technology changes and improves. Kind of the reason we all come to this site, right? To keep abreast of those changes."
Hence my questions, they are significant issues for HFCV's. Is there anything in this article that tells us that the technology has improved and we have something to be excited about?
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Nov 28, 2006 6:59:43 PM
Is there anything in this article that tells us that the technology has improved and we have something to be excited about?
Range keeps improving.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 7:36:03 PM
"One thing I know for sure is that most of us can't even imagine the directions technologies and innovations will turn, yet so many of us act like we've got the whole future mapped out."
Well said Pizmo, it seems you've got it mapped out that it will be a FCV. You're treating this topic so religiously one has to wonder if you have money invested in the FC technology.
Posted by: CarbonJunkie | Nov 28, 2006 9:39:57 PM
Your obsession continues, doesn't it?
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 9:53:43 PM
This is my first message on this server ever. I scanned briefly through the messages and couldn't help but notice how you've been able to respond so often and so quickly.
I wondered how long it would take you to answer my message. Well done, you got it in about 20 minutes. Let's see how long it takes you to get to answering this one.
I've just never seen anyone one be able to monitor a message board so tenaciously. You've been on this board enough to answer any criticism in a matter of minutes for a over a day.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 9:09:46 AM ->
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 9:53:43 PM
You must be the FCV's greatest proponent! You go Pizmo!
Posted by: CarbonJunkie | Nov 28, 2006 10:06:48 PM
This is my first message on this server ever.
Right, and the check's in the mail.
You poor poor thing.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 10:12:40 PM
pizmo said;
"Range keeps improving."
Well that's remarkable, of all the issues that I thought were holding HFCV's back I never considered range to be one of them! :-)
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Nov 28, 2006 11:21:39 PM
Range is the big thing holding back evs and fuel cell cards alike. Popel want to be able to go a certain dustance without a fillup or charge up or anything.
The 350-400 mile range is a vital target for some cars and for suvs and the like its 500-600 miles. The distance a twin tank 50 gallon cmbined suv generaly can manage.
Generaly for long tour trucks as in most subs sold to the tons and tons and tons of people that do such things as horse showstrade shows swap meets and whatnot you want to drive a day and fill up ant the end.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 29, 2006 1:22:41 AM
Global production of platinum stands at 190 tonnes per year.
If *ALL* of this was used to make fuel cells for vehicles, at an average of 100 grammes per vehicle, that would add up to only 1.9 million cars per year, or 3% of current worldwide production.
However I suspect the other platinum-using industries in the world may complain about losing 100% of global platinum production to supply engines for a small number of highly energy inefficient cars.
Posted by: clett | Nov 29, 2006 3:55:07 AM
Do all fuel cell technologies use platinum, Clett?
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 29, 2006 7:25:42 AM
There have already designed serveral fuel cells that dont contain any platinum at all.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 29, 2006 7:48:53 AM
All the ones in todays FCVs use platinum.
Posted by: clett | Nov 29, 2006 8:54:38 AM
The fuel cells with a useable level of efficiency all use platinum and its close relatives.
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 29, 2006 10:05:04 AM
here in europe ,partically in this area on lombardy in northern italy, with is suffering from some of the most polluted air in the whole of europe , due to its geographic position, and the unwillingness of the population to walk or cycle anywhere , the average daily milage of 80% of the population is no more than 50km, the majority of these journeys could be undertaken by electric car , also we have a flat 50km limit on most roads , perfect one might think ! but can you buy an electric car , no !
I personally think that certainly in europe govenments a doing their very best to bury any furthering of this sort of technology , the loss to their income would be to great over the long term , how would you tax electricity used for mobility? road pricing is a way, but administrations are dragging thier heels because it is a vote loser.
this is why all the big companies and administrations are pushing the technology down the hydrogen route , its somthing that can be taxed at source , it is not because it is more efficent or eco friendly , it is just another form of consumption, and in our present world consumption is deemed to be good .
I think that if a big company like Fiat in italy really went for it in a big way producing a electric version of their Panda or the new Punto the whole suituation could be turned around in the next ten years or so , can you imagine the advances that could be made in EV tech if the funding and the will was there. however this will not happen because fiat is very snug with Agip the italian oil giant who are in turn very close to the italian goverment !
So my thoughts are ,that we will never be allowed to used the sort of technology that may just go someway to saving this planet for our future generations , I personally think hydrogen is to unrealiable to become a mass market alterturnative to petrol or diesel certainly in the next twenty years or so , how would your local friendly mechanic adapt to this sort of technology , it would push all repairs back to the main dealers , but maybe this is all part of the plan !
as a last thought , I wonder what our children will think of us knowing that we
had the technolgy to save the planet but not the will
Posted by: andrichrose | Nov 29, 2006 11:14:37 AM
Apparently Sulfur deprived Algae excrete H2 as well as O2. I think I saw a patent filed on this H2 production process while looking for something else.
Posted by: RD | Dec 2, 2006 7:27:48 PM
Andrichrose,
Become the first dealer in your town to sell EVs. Smart or other cars could do it.
There are electric cars just waiting for distribution so that they can sell more. Now if Fiat and the oil companies try to run you out of business, that is one thing, but waiting for them to do something will probably not make it happen.
Posted by: SJC | Dec 3, 2006 4:32:11 PM
The main reason h2 will oikely beat ev is there are alot more people standing to make alot more mney off it and thus alot more people chasing it and funding its initial steps.
There just arnt enough people who stand to make money out of ev.
Posted by: wintermane | Dec 4, 2006 4:33:43 PM
DME developments in China today:
Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out.
If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:
DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia
Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.
Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe
Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation
For more information: www.iceorganiser.com
Posted by: Cheryl Ho | May 23, 2007 8:44:24 PM
Fuel Cell manufacturers have com a long way in their product offerings. Applications ranging in size from a few watts to many Kilowatts, as required by an automobile, can be sourced by the wide range of fuel cells technologies that are currently available. I just saw a list of companies that produce fuel cells you can buy at www.fuelcellsforpower.com. The efficiency may not be there now, but like everything else it will come.
Posted by: Bill Adams | Jun 15, 2007 6:32:06 AM
