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.

http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burncompdm3.png

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great, now put it into a 3000lb passenger car instead of a 5000lb SUV.

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).

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.

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.)

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.

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).

Why not just build an ethanol powered hydraulic hybrid?

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.

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.

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?

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.