Ballard's web site says it has a maximum on off of 2,500 cycles. Does that mean if you use it twice a day, it will last 1,200 days?

Going for their corporate degree, clueless Ohio State speed freaks waste time and energy with impractical technologies. Hydrogen fuel cell is nonsense, in this application clearly. Program directors must realize practical application of fuel cell tech is impossible, and so direct students efforts at useless engineering feats like these, expecting them to be 'followers', not realistic innovators. The kiss-up clowns get the highest grades and Ohio State 'Dumbed-down' certification.

Apparently the engineering students are collaborating with the Buckeye marketing students.

Yeah - what's with engineering student trying to set records, build fast cars and learn engineering by having FUN? They oughtto get to the grindstone and make a practical car for the proletariat and take this world for the serious, depressing, near extinct place it really is!

Couple years forced labor should straighten them out...

Actually, the Ohio engineering students are in an enviable position, in that they are having fun making speed records and getting to work at the cutting edge of technology, the future of clean and sustainable propulsion technology. Designing this vehicle is a great learning experience in engineering, and the experience learned here will go a long way to help design better fuel cells and better high-performance electric vehicle.

You see, people don't just want to buy a car, they want to buy bragging rights, glamour, muscle, testosterone...That's why we see 400-500 hp BMW, MB, Lexus, Corvette, Cadillac, Mustang, Ferrari, Maserati, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Mayback...Oh, and the 1000 hp Bugatti... and the likes ...vehicles that make enormous profit for the mfg's.
Sadly, economy cars don't make much profit.

The purpuse of these type of demonstations at the university level is not necesseraly on practical end results. They are learning to function in a group dynamic. As for Hydrogen fuel cells not being pracical give them time they will be. Hydrogen will in the next 50 to 100 years be the fuel of choice. Advances in biological and concentrated solar will make hydrogen economicaly viable.

Hydrogen will never be a perfect fuel. Ultracapacitors...that's the ticket.

I wonder, with the right gearing, could you make a steam engine drive a race car at 200 miles per hour?

How about the students build a 4-seat fuel cell car that costs $20,000 and runs good for 10 years?

Ohio State speed freaks waste time and energy with impractical technologies.

It's in the eye of the beholder. What I see is, if they put wings and a propeller on that thing they could be well on their way toward something very practical for this century. (Oh, and ditch the helox.) Or remove the fuel cells (a great science exercise) and put in the latest batteries, and you've got something even more worthwhile for this century. Maybe a little overdone. Actually, they already did that, a previous class, and they will tell you about that too on their web site. They are not only learning the (overdue) technology of the future, they are showing it to the world. Mocking doubters of the power of electric drive. Cheers to all those who participated.

Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future, or some people say. Apparently hydrogen is the only means of storing and transporting electrical energy, or so some people seem to think. As if other ways of storing and transporting electrical energy that happen to be more efficient, cheaper, have better volumetric density (aren’t gases) and are not flammable don’t exist. The hydrogen economy is a curse that sucks attention and money away from far more viable energy economy solutions. The hydrogen economy is hardest to implement verses batteries, biofuels, metal-air fuel cells, etc, so why is it so popular?

noname:

Hydrogen is popular because those people who can produce h2 from fossile fuel successfully convinced most of the people that we can suck fuel out from water and use.

A metal-air battery that can burn pure zinc powder seem like a more viable option. We just need to replace some none flammable none toxic "zinc toner" each week and recycle the zinc oxide.

Differing pheromone responses, particularly in much of the popular media?

"anonymous" is more polite then "no name". Is there any proof that hydrogen is just a pipe-dream scam of the petroleum and gas companies because they know its the hardest to implement alternative and thus lest competitive? I would like to believe it in fact I do, I just wish there was proof.

Anti-hydrogen, pro-nuke. The word "green" sure has been perverted around here.

Sounds like the posting here is of the uninformed-maybe Ballard Power could put some people up to speed.

Devarity,

Lithium Ion battery power EV are cheaper to make then fuel cell power EV, Battery EV do not require new infrastructure other then a 240V power plug in a garage and running off off-peak power can power most cars without any new power plants. Battery power EV have much higher energy efficiencies then hydrogen. Metal fuel in a metal-air fuel cell can be store as a paste or particle slurry in a simple plastic or bladder tank, no ultra-high pressure tanks and no fire risk. metal-air fuel cells have slightly higher energy efficiency then hydrogen.

Sure is good to see these guys building something of substance rather than whining about what your future transportation won't be.

Lithim Ion battery is not cheap yet. e.g.
"The city council of Burbank, California, has agreed to the purchase of a hydrogen hybrid fuel cell transit bus, it has been revealed. " Hydrogen seems like it is gaining momentum.

Devarity,

Show me a production Fuel Cell EV thats under 100,000 dollars and I'll show you the Tesla Roadster. PHEV and HEV have been "gaining momentum" for years now and actually have market penetration. Battery grid energy storage systems already have multiple megawatt systems up and running using Lead-sulfur and vanadium redox batteries, yet there is not a single multiple megawatt hydrogen grid energy storage systems up and running. Despite how the Hydrogen economy may look pretty and simple its less efficient, harder to implement, more expensive, and even more polluting then a mixed alternative energy economy, maximum focus should be on batteries, metal-air fuel cells and cellulosic biofuels .

Show me a production Fuel Cell EV thats under 100,000 dollars and I'll show you the Tesla Roadster.

You'll show a car that hasn't been produced yet?

Hydrogen will never become a practical fuel for automotive application. I suspect corporate leaders intend for us to believe this is so because hydrogen must for safety reasons remain a 'proprietary' fuel. Hydrogen has been promoted to the front of the line of alternative fuels and technologies on the basis of its ability to be used as a means of monopolistic control. Thus, hydrogen fueling stations will be little different than today's corner gas stations, a price-gouging monopoly.

Battery systems, on the other hand, represent a threat to corporate profit, whether the corporation be automotive, oil company, electricity utility or any other automobile-related interest; finance, insurance, big box retail, public relations firms, etc.

The Plug-in Hybrid technology battery pack is a perfect technologyical match with rooftop photovoltiac solar panels, giving households an invaluable power supply in an emergency or grid failure; a means to measure household electricity consumption and conservation; a life-saving vehicle safety feature that improves handling and stability; an economic incentive to drive fewer daily miles on electricity alone, which affects land-use and development patterns that bring home closer to all other activities improving access to them without having to drive. Hydrogen and the fuel cell do not offer such futuristic incentives. Profit is not measured in dollars and cents, yen, mark or college degrees.

Wells,
Are you implying that batteries, PV panels, and utility electricity can be made by the individual at home? And that Hydrogen cannot be made at home? Big Oil or any other potentially-monopolistic organization can own battery and PV panel manufacturing and utility electricity.

How do you charge your PHEV or BEV with your home PV when your BEV is parked during the day at work? You'll have to rely on the utility company, won't you, since it will cost too much to store the daytime PV electricity for night use?

Mr Pham, as more and more households and businsses install photovoltiac panels and battery charging stations and connect them to a utility grid, the advantages I list will acrue to both utilities and households. The public will gain a stake in the utility grid which should allow many communities a say in public ownership. While you align your free market ideology with technology that exploits humanity's lesser nature, others will choose the more practical and wise course. It's likely that households will install battery packs for emergency purposes, particularly automotive batteries that reach the wear point which makes them reliable only for low wattage household purposes.

It is no wonder why George Duhbya Bush cancelled Al Gore's Hybrid R&D Program and replaced it with the dismally failing hydrogen fuel cell car program.

Mr. Wells, Battery electricity and Hydrogen and hydrogen carriers and NG and BTL etc. can all co-exist in our renewable-energy future.

I believe that unbalanced hydrogen-bashing can unfairly intimidate potential investors in current and future hydrogen technologies. These emerging hydrogen-producing-and-carrying technologies can offer enormous potential in helping us weaning off fossil fuels. Hydrogen is very clean (non-polluting) and can be produced very efficiently, and with appropriate hydrogen-carrying technology, can replace petroleum with equal or greater safety and economy.

Roger,
You are one of the few people here on these board that consistently blow sunshine about hydrogen. Do you have a financial or other stake in hydrogen's success? Are you paid to post here? You have an almost religious devotion to a technology that has functioned as a dangerous distraction to the goals (clean energy, etc.) that you profess to support.

I have exactly the opposite take to you on the dangers of what you call hydrogen-bashing. I'm afraid that gullible investors will be taken in by the sunny prognostications of someone like yourself.

Wells,

I disagree with your characterization of hydrogen vs. battery-electric as being a conflict between bad capitalists and good public-minded people. On both sides of this debate are capitalists and the public, its just that there are different orientations and business plans. The inventors and makers of high energy density batteries or ultracapacitors as well as forward looking utilities will make a decent amount of money in an (renewable we hope) electron economy.

I believe as well that centralized and decentralized energy production are going to co-exist for a long time. Renewable energy is much easier to harvest in certain areas (high wind, sunny etc.) over others and this will play a role in our energy future.