You can tell how the fuel cells have progressed because they have in fact been testing each generation.

As for your fuel cell demo run that was a fuel cell froma few years back.

59 50 fuel cell and h2 gen nets around 25% eff.. add in old style compression and its a bot lower.

But current fuel cells and h2 generators are much better.. they have 85% eff generators and 75% eff fuel cells and the newer compressors use alot less energy.

As both fuel cell and electrolyzers or h2 from nat gas generators get better total energy cost goes down and range increases.

For example if you assume current h2 demo cars are only using 50% eff cells and getting say 50 mpk for that model.. then a 75% cell will net 75 mpk.

If you assume the volt cell is still only 60% eff and it reaches 75% by the 2012 deadline then the 75 mpk volt becomes a 94 mpk car with a range of 376 miles on h2. If by say 2020 that cell reaches just 80% thats over 100 mpk. And that for a 3500 lb car.

Darwin:

Yes, my way of life is non-negotiable. I worked hard to get here, and I will live it the way I like to live it. If that makes me smug, then so-be-it.

Neil:

So I guess my logic is child-like. Somehow I managed to make it this far with substandard logic. "An adult takes care of his own problems" - the thing about it is, I don't consider what I am driving to be a problem. If you think it is, give me what I want to drive with a cleaner drive-train. And switch to something smaller? Nah, I'll pass, I like what I drive.

DS:

I never saw it that way. I have gone my whole life thinking my lifestyle was the best one, but somehow your questioning of my manhood has caused me to see the light! I owe you a debt that I can never repay....
Actually, the jokes on you: Not only am I impotent, I'm hung like a walnut, also, so I'm going to go out and purchase another Range Rover tomorrow so I have two to make up for my "shortcomings."

Mike,

I think a lot of us here are somewhat mystified by the appeal of SUVs. Clearly most owners don't use its talents: they don't go off-road, don't use its cargo space except for groceries, aren't buying a safer car (rollovers), while they are clearly getting worse gas-mileage, creating more CO2 and are more likely to cause death to others in an accident.

So what reason is there then, besides a macho sense of superiority that comes from the high driving position and the aggressive styling?

I'm honestly wondering. Maybe you can tell us.

Opponents of FCV's and FC-PHEV's are somewhat shortsighted!

The prediction is that the cost of fuel cell stack for an average car will be reduced to $4000 USD. Promising research has shown that it may be possible to reduce the amount of platinum used to 1/10th of previous amount, making the platinum content comparable with current catalytic converters. Non-platinum catalysts may also be viable in the future.

The cost of a 4kg H2 tank is, right now, under $2000 USD that can store an equivalent of 4 kg x 36 kwh= 144 kwh of thermal energy. With an energy efficiency of 60% as reported in the Honda FCX, this is equivalent to 115 kwh of battery electricity assuming a grid-to-wheel efficiency of 75% for a BEV. Now, let's say that you can manage to reduce the cost of A123 Lithium battery from $2000 USD / kwh as is announced at the present, to $400 USD/kwh over many years, the 115 kwh will still cost ya $46,000 USD.

Now, what do ya want? A FC-PHEV with H2+ FC stack costing $ 6000 USD vs. a BEV with battery cost of $46,000 USD?

H2 produced from gasification of waste cellulosic biomass or coal, or fermentation of cellulosic biomass will be even more energy efficient than BEV when electricity is still produced from fossil fuels. Even if you have solar and wind electricity, these can be fed directly to the grid in order to allow IGCC clean coal (or biomass) power station to produce and store H2 for automotive use. If you would disperse these gasification plants into each community, then everyone will have convenient access to H2 fillup without costly distribution issue for H2.

"Clearly most owners don't use its talents"

- That may be true, IF you will only accept the uses YOU assign to them - Perhaps the way they are used by each purchaser is the proper use in their opinion. As a society member, you have to accept that some people will behave in a manner you don't like.

"they don't go off-road"

- I do. I purchased a house in the high desert so that I can disappear every few weeks, and I went out of my way to make sure that it is hard to get to, mostly so I wouldn't have to lend it to other people.

"don't use its cargo space except for groceries"

- If they purchase it to haul groceries, then you accept it as a legitimate use? Even if you did, most on here wouldn't, as thier dislike of SUVs is based on irrational hate. CO2 emissions are just a convenient vehicle for that. I remember the early 90's when gas was still ~$1 gallon, 99% of the people in this country had never heard of global warming, and yet people still found reasons to hate SUVs. The difference is that last time, the haters didn't have a holy crusade to hide behind.

"aren't buying a safer car (rollovers)"

- The only roll-over I have ever seen has been when someone hit the soft shoulder on the way to Vegas while speeding. They undoubtedly happen more often, but I don't seem to see them with the frequency that people claim they happen at, and I live in an area with a high prevelance of SUVs. Even if they do happen often, it's a risk I am willing to assume. Some people smoke, other people skydive, I drive the unsafe SUV. I live on the edge....

"while they are clearly getting worse gas-mileage, creating more CO2"

- Obviously, but that is MY problem. I know that to some of the people reading this, it will be considered their problem, too, due to warming, etc., but I get to choose what to drive, and I choose this. Fortunatley for the rest of us, national policy is decided by people that are voted into power, and not by religious fanatics on a global warming blog.

"and are more likely to cause death to others in an accident."

- I certainly don't want to kill anybody, but if someone had to die in a traffic accident, I would rather be the one causing accidental death than the one being killed. I know that seems harsh, but it is realistic. If driving this type of vehicle increases my chances of survival, then that is an incentive to drive it.

"So what reason is there then, besides a macho sense of superiority that comes from the high driving position and the aggressive styling?"

- Many reasons, but the question you asked is more interesting than any answer I could give. Are we supposed to assume that every suburban soccer mom driving a Chevy Tahoe is suffering from a bout of p*nis envy? If that's the case, thanks for the warning, I will stay out of their way to protect my precious testosterone reserves.

Thanks, Mike, for sharing the pro-SUV sentiments.

Now, it's my turn to voice some anti-SUV rationales:

As a man, I like curvaceous, aesthetic bodies, and SUV's are mostly lacking in aethetic curves.
This deficiency translates to:
1) horrible aerodynamic efficiency, like moving a brick through the air. You can feel this every times at the gas pump now that gas is >$3/USGal. Ouch!
2) wind noise at high speed, due to higher level of wind turbulence from those sharp corners.

As a family man, I'm interested in overall safety.

And, surprise surprise, large-sized SUV overall safety statistic is not better than that of a smaller but well-made car like the Honda Civic! This is because the SUV's may be safer in frontal collision, the higher ride height make it more vulnerable to roll-over accidents and side collision with similar size vehicle. Minivans like the Toyota Sienna holds the trump card in term of collision and overall safety while has much higher fuel efficiency and comparable load-carrying capacity and internal space.
The tall ride height of the SUV requires stiffer suspension, resulting in harsher, less comfortable ride.

As a person with a social conscience, who is ready to risk my life to save the lives of others, I would rather drive a smaller car in order to reduce the risk of injury to others, rather than to live and suffer from a guilty conscience for the rest of my life should my oversized vehicle inflicts needless death and destruction to others. If everyone drives smaller cars, or not at all, our world will be a much better place.
SUV's are products of commercialism seeking to introducing a morbid fad upon the population, like tobacco, alcohol, fashion...and they, not knowing any better, are buying it in droves!

I drive a Prius with ~55mpg overall efficiency, ultra-quiet, ultra-reliable, and really enjoy the comfort and advance technology that the vehicle offers. If I'll died in a collision with a Hummer, I'll die a happy man with a clear conscience, and much better than if I would die from motorcycling, flying airplanes or do hang gliding or parachuting or any dangerous sports.

Roger:

I appreciate the way you approached your response to my post. For the most part, once I point out my view, other posters resort to ad hominems (see DS's post questioning my manhood!), and yours did nothing of the sort. With that in mind....

"As a man, I like curvaceous, aesthetic bodies, and SUV's are mostly lacking in aethetic curves.
This deficiency translates to:
1) horrible aerodynamic efficiency, like moving a brick through the air. You can feel this every times at the gas pump now that gas is >$3/USGal. Ouch!
2) wind noise at high speed, due to higher level of wind turbulence from those sharp corners."

- I am a fan of the curvaceous body as well (; P), but let's remember that not every man likes curvaceous bodies.....
joking aside, you are certainly correct, the average SUV is less aerodynamically efficient, but it is a tradeoff. I am willing to accept that boxy shape on the outside so that I can fit alot of gear on the inside. As far as windnoise goes, I like my Iggy Pop and the Stooges at high volume, so that's really not a problem. And yes, we can both agree that gas is expensive, but for me it is a tax writeoff, so the cost is completley mitigated every quarter when I file my estimated tax return.

"As a family man, I'm interested in overall safety.

And, surprise surprise, large-sized SUV overall safety statistic is not better than that of a smaller but well-made car like the Honda Civic! This is because the SUV's may be safer in frontal collision, the higher ride height make it more vulnerable to roll-over accidents and side collision with similar size vehicle. Minivans like the Toyota Sienna holds the trump card in term of collision and overall safety while has much higher fuel efficiency and comparable load-carrying capacity and internal space.
The tall ride height of the SUV requires stiffer suspension, resulting in harsher, less comfortable ride."

- I admitted in my last post that the SUV may be less safe than other vehicles, but, once again, that's my choice. I don't have kids yet (she is seriously pestering me about it!), and perhaps my opinions will change once that happens, but right now, the vehicle I drive fits my lifestyle. You may be correct about the interior space of the Sienna, but the Sienna won't get me through a flooded desert wash in the middle of the night (like this last winter). As far as the suspension goes, in my experience, stiff suspension is a sports car thing, and all the SUVs I have driven have had relatively soft suspensions because they are not built for handling, but for comfort. I would say that the LR3 is the king of soft suspension, and though I really like that SUV, it handles horribly due to the air suspension - soft ride, huge body roll.

"As a person with a social conscience, who is ready to risk my life to save the lives of others, I would rather drive a smaller car in order to reduce the risk of injury to others, rather than to live and suffer from a guilty conscience for the rest of my life should my oversized vehicle inflicts needless death and destruction to others. If everyone drives smaller cars, or not at all, our world will be a much better place."

- I am sure you possess social conscious, as all moral people do. I also agree about minimizing the risk you pose to others, but that doesn't mean you need to stay indoors all day. I am a former navy corpsman, and I HAVE risked my life in combat to help others (both friend and foe) on several occasions, so I understand the point of view you have. But your fear of causing damage to others is misplaced. You don't want to live with the guilty conscience of hurting others with your vehicle, but which is more likely to keep you awake at night? Hitting and killing a pedestrian with a Prius, or not hitting them at all with a SUV? I know that the choice of vehicle has nothing to do with whether or not you harm someone, but driving a small car does not guarantee that you won't accidentally kill someone.

"SUV's are products of commercialism seeking to introducing a morbid fad upon the population, like tobacco, alcohol, fashion...and they, not knowing any better, are buying it in droves!"

- Almost all vehicles are products of commercialism - how did you find out about the Prius you purchased? An advertisement? What is wrong with commercialism? Tobacco is certainly dangerous, and though I am a lover of beer, I know that alcohol carries its own risks. I think where we diverge is in our view of human behavior - I assume that people are generally smart enough to make their own decisions. And "morbid"? I think you are exagerrating the issue. I don't belive you think that people are stupid, but perhaps they DO know better, and they have merely made a choice that you do not approve of.

"I drive a Prius with ~55mpg overall efficiency, ultra-quiet, ultra-reliable, and really enjoy the comfort and advance technology that the vehicle offers. If I'll died in a collision with a Hummer, I'll die a happy man with a clear conscience, and much better than if I would die from motorcycling, flying airplanes or do hang gliding or parachuting or any dangerous sports."

- I have no doubt that the Prius is ultra reliable - most Toyotas are. That is why they sell so well. And I know from personal experience that they are quiet, as I was almost hit by a person driving one in a parking lot recently because I didn't hear it behind me when it was moving slowly - very cool! (as a side note, how will they modify electric vehicles to protect the deaf? Hopefully it won't sound like a garbage truck in reverse!) And if you died tomorrow in an accident, I'm pretty sure that as a family man, the vehicle you died in would be the last thought on your mind. And, quite frankly, your conscience should not be influenced by your choice of transporation. If it is, you're trumped by any person that has always used public transportation...

Don't be afraid of the numerous anti-hydrogen people. with hydrogen we can replicate the u.f.o method of propulsion because the exhaust can be recirculate again
and become fuel again and again with good electyrolysis.
Water turning to hydrogen and oxygen then turning to water, it's the only free fuel there is, a bit like the sun. People are afraid of martians with good reasons but
it's not a reason to use oil. We can stay on earth but
use hydrogen with water electrolisis and find others problems instead of the energy problem.

nice blog get lots of information !!!
_____________________________________

Dissertation help