« China Youngman Plans to Ship 1,000 CNG Buses to the US Within 12 Months | Main | Nylon Resin Replaces Steel in Exhaust System Parts »
Transit Agency Finds Total Operating Cost of Its Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses 32X That of Diesel
26 February 2008
|
| The significant increase in operating cost for hydrogen buses is largely, but not entirely, due to parts cost. Click to enlarge. |
A memo prepared by the Santa Clara Valley (California) Transportation Authority (VTA) for the Transportation and Planning Committee of its Board of Directors reports that the average total operating cost per mile of the agency’s three hydrogen fuel cell buses is $51.66—32 times the average total cost per mile for the conventional diesel fleet.
In addition, the memo states, the fuel cell buses—part of the Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) demonstration program required by the California Air Resources Board (ARB)—exhibit a limited service life compared to diesel buses, while the reliability and availability remain significantly lower.
| Average cost per mile | ||
|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Diesel | Fuel cell |
| Parts cost | $0.21 | $34.40 |
| Labor cost | $0.84 | $7.87 |
| Fuel cost | $0.56 | $2.86 |
| Fuel loss cost | – | $2.86 |
| Fuel facility lease cost | – | $3.67 |
| Total Cost | $1.61 | $51.66 |
As part of emissions reduction regulations in California, transit agencies on the diesel path with 200 or more buses were required to implement a Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) demonstration program. To comply, VTA partnered with SamTrans to purchase three fuel cell buses, which entered service 28 February 2005. Since completing the demonstration program, the buses have been used in extra revenue service on various routes throughout Santa Clara County and have now accumulated more than 75,000 miles.
VTA’s experience was that ZEB availability ranged from a low of 26% to a high of 87%, and was on average approximately 65% , as compared to more than 80% for the diesel fleet. Reliability, as measured by miles between road calls (MBRC), varied greatly since the start of revenue service. During the period of February 2005 through May 2007 the buses averaged 1100 MBRC. The 40 foot diesel fleet has a reliability of approximately 6,000 MBRC.
A major purpose for this demonstration program was to determine the life and/or durability of the fuel cell stack. The VTA Fuel cell stacks averaged less than 17,000 miles before replacement.
Although the CARB initial demonstration requirements have been completed, VTA currently plans to continue operating the fuel cell buses providing reasonable parts and fuel availability. However, Ballard Power Systems (Ballard), the manufacturer of the fuel cells and integrator of the system, has indicated that the fuel cells in these buses are old technology; and Ballard will not develop new longer-life fuel cells of this design and no longer design vehicle integrations. Furthermore, Ballard Power Systems will no longer produce various components and parts for these vehicles. The specific parts and components have not been verified; nor the specific remaining supply.
An additional cost was fuel loss during fueling. The fueling facility (which had to be leased, for an additional cost) was consistent and operated with an efficiency of approximately 50%—i.e., for every diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) of hydrogen dispensed into the bus, one DGE was lost into the atmosphere. This effectively doubled the cost of fuel.
Fuel consumption for the hydrogen buses ranged between 2.52 and 4.81 miles per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) and averages approximately 3.5 miles per DGE for a range of approximately 150 miles.
In accordance with new ARB regulations requiring the San Francisco Bay Area region to operate a total of 12 advanced Zero Emissions Buses starting in 2009, VTA plans to implement an advanced ZEB demonstration program in a joint effort with AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Sam Trans and MTC.
VTA is working with MTC and the other agencies to identify and secure capital funding for this program, which is estimated at $36,000,000. VTA anticipates that its share will be approximately $4 million.
February 26, 2008 in Fuel Cells, Heavy-duty, Hydrogen | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/26541732
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Transit Agency Finds Total Operating Cost of Its Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses 32X That of Diesel :
Comments
Hmm... 50% refueling efficiency? Or does that number include the vented off hydrogen from the bus` tank?
(50% would be consistent with LH2 tank venting during hot summer days, though.)
In any case, just for the fuel alone, for hydrogen to become economical the barrel of oil needs to get up to 400-500 USD.
Vastly inefficienty, this hydrogen-hype stuff...
BTW, why not rip out the old, outdated FC and put in a new one with the same metrics, provided by a 3rd party company... Could it be that no one is interested in this? Despite all the hype? Strange...
Posted by: realarms | Feb 26, 2008 8:26:17 AM
I see these going on eBay sometime soon.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 26, 2008 8:38:10 AM
Interesting to see that even Ballard are now accepting that developing fuel cells for vehicles is stupid.
Can't wait to see the Altair electric bus.
Posted by: clett | Feb 26, 2008 8:44:43 AM
Golly Gee Willikers!!!! Who would have thought [/sarcasm]
Posted by: DS | Feb 26, 2008 8:55:51 AM
you can see why all the car manufacturers are so interested
in fuel cells ,from these figures it seems a lot like a licence
to print money !
T
Posted by: andrichrose | Feb 26, 2008 9:10:14 AM
Wouldn't it be easier just to use trolley buses and bio-diesel/hydrolic hybrids?
Posted by: Neil | Feb 26, 2008 9:17:26 AM
The City of Santa Clara has a fuel-cell-powered power plant as well. I think it is SOFC. It makes sense that they would operate these buses, if anybody would, but one wonders what else their data indicate about the very-long-term future prospects of fuel cells. You know, that long awaited time when we get the ubiquity of a "Mr. Fusion" type device.
Posted by: Healthy Breaze | Feb 26, 2008 9:21:56 AM
It is a shame that Ballard has not been adequately supported so they could put a new generation of FCs in these. Ballard made some of the initial improvements in PEM output and should still be in the game.
Santa Clara did have a MCFC in their power plant as a trial. This was more than 10 years ago and it was taken out of service.
I would rather have NG diesel hybrid buses. They are something more practical, are relatively clean and efficient.
Posted by: sjc | Feb 26, 2008 9:50:38 AM
Lordy! For that money I could refill my prescriptions.
The astonishing parts cost is where to explore.
Which portion was related to the use of hydrogen and fuel cells? Which portion was spent on other?
Besides these costs consider the capital cost of buying the buses. I suspect FC buses aren't cheap.
My guess: experience and improvements could cut the cost by 80% over the next five years. That puts costs at about $10/mile or about 6X diesel.
Posted by: K | Feb 26, 2008 9:55:19 AM
Most of the problem was dilbert boss syndrome.
The used a very old 2001 design fc with a horrif 500 hour durability when even in 2005 ballard has far better and more eff and cheaper fcs.
They also used a moronic fuel tank and compounded that blunder with renting the station for a ton.. and I think I remember the station not even being near the routes...
Even now its a moronic idea to test the cost compared to deisel as DURRRR!!! The bloody fuel cells are still in bloody dev and arnt schedualed for mass market for 5-12 freaking years of bloody well captain amazingly obvious DUH!!!! its not ready yet!!!!
Still its amazing the morons didnt manage to waste more money then that... only 32x with all that slop... the buricrats must have forgotten to embezzel/pilfer and pork it as much as everything else... either that or they only jad 12 mediumly overpaod techs standing around scratching thier butts while 1 low paid guy did all the work instead of the regulation 20 high paid expert buttscratchers.
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 26, 2008 10:42:50 AM
The problem is not in the bureaucratic bungling, but the inefficiency of hydrogen technology.
They could make hydrogen technology more efficient, but I doubt if hydrogen fuel cell can ever catch up with batteries, since innovation in battery technologies is going quickly as well.
Posted by: Lulu | Feb 26, 2008 11:23:52 AM
Finally, some real numbers. Reality bites.
Posted by: Tom Street | Feb 26, 2008 11:38:45 AM
How much global warming is caused by Hydrogen when it vents to atmosphere? Is it worse than CO2? Doers anyone know. Methane is 21 times worse than CO2
Posted by: John Baldwin | Feb 26, 2008 11:39:44 AM
$52 per mile! So with 25 passengers on the bus, a 10 mile ride should cost just a little more than $20. Or $25 if they want to make a profit.
Posted by: Peter | Feb 26, 2008 11:44:57 AM
Does this mean that Hydrogen will not become a practical transportation fuel until fusion is perfected?
Duh!
Posted by: Lucas | Feb 26, 2008 11:48:47 AM
I calculated that it cost $A50 per kilometre to run the hydrogen buses in Perth, Western Australia. The trial was discontinued.
Posted by: Aussie | Feb 26, 2008 12:00:50 PM
Look at what China has been doing for several years now:
"Luxury electric bus developed in Beijing 05-30-2004
A luxury double-decker electric bus capable of running at least 150 kilometers on one charge has been developed in Beijing. . .
The seven types of electric buses developed by the company have all passed appraisals and acceptance checks of the state. These vehicles boast top speeds ranging from 80 kilometers to 95 kilometers and running distances of 150 kilometers to 300 kilometers on one charge.
China plans to serve the coming Olympic Games with more than 1, 000 Chinese-made electric vehicles. Prior to that, 20 electric buses will soon hit the roads in Beijing."
For typical specs see:
http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11922129/Electric_Bus.htm
Chances are that hydrogen will never be a viable vehicle fuel - but hydrogen produced from renewable energy sources could replace natural gas in many, many industrial applications - from fertilizer production to steel and cement production.
Posted by: Ike | Feb 26, 2008 12:37:39 PM
I am glad someone is experimenting with fuel cells in a real environment, how else do you learn anything?
I applaud the agencies paying for the buses. At least they have some data.
Posted by: Bill W | Feb 26, 2008 1:11:00 PM
LOOK UP "RUN CAR ON WATER" THRU YOUR BROUSER OR USE YAHOO OR GOOGLE. IT TELLS YOU HOW TO MAKE ENOUGH HYDROGEN FUEL FROM HYDROGEN COMPRESSED IN WATER WITH ELECTROLISIS, USING ONLY WATER AND YOUR VEHICLE'S BATTERY, TO ALLOW YOU TO RUN YOUR VEHICLE USING HYDROGEN AS FUEL. HOW MUCH DOES WATER COST?
Posted by: Leo Wells | Feb 26, 2008 2:11:46 PM
How much global warming is caused by Hydrogen when it vents to atmosphere? Is it worse than CO2? Doers anyone know....
John - don't think that hydrogen itself is a GHG. However, the exhaust from a fuel cell - water vapor - is, and is a more effective GHG that CO2.
There have been other environmental concerns raised about hydrogen leakage - namely that it could potentially deplete stratospheric ozone, much like CFCs (see http://www.theozonehole.com/hydrogeneconomy.htm).
Posted by: Carl | Feb 26, 2008 2:36:58 PM
Whst we need now is to wait for the new gen ballard fc and the new fuel tanks and then see what someone can do with todays tech. We would then have a good idea how fast fc is creeping up on old standard and thus when it might go mainstream.
Main improvments I know of are...
1 lifespan Im fairly sure the current gen fc is lasting over 200000 miles and the gen comming out this year or next was gona last alot more.
2 fc cost... it looks like this old fc is costing them 4-500k each... im fairly sure the new unit costs less then 150k and isnt even mass produced so costs will drop a ton when they finaly do start ramping.
3 the fuel itself.. I KNOQ they do alot better fuel tank and fuel econ wise with current tech and I know h2 has been dropping in price.. and I doubt anyone plans to rent a bloody station for that much now adays.
As with evs we need to see more tries at it then now and in the future to get a good idea where h2 is going compared to old fossil fuel and new hybrid bussses.
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 26, 2008 2:45:28 PM
Millenium Cellular developed a process called "hydrogen on demand" This fuel is solid.....no storage tanks on board. Simple and cheap. Since no one was really building cars, they took their technology in another direction and are applying it to small appliances, like a watch that will run forever. Eventually fuel cell cars will return to this fuel.
Posted by: Parry Laird | Feb 26, 2008 3:36:38 PM
@ Carl,
Sure, H2O is a greenhouse gas, but it cycles out of the atmosphere in a matter of hours. CO2 often takes years to cycle out of the atmosphere. CO2 thus has a much larger warming impact. However, as average temperatures rise because of CO2, we will likely see higher average humidity as well, which just increases the potential for run-away warming events.
Posted by: Healthy Breaze | Feb 26, 2008 4:04:55 PM
@ Healthy Breaze -
I generally agree with you with the following caveats:
If we hypothetically convert all transport vehicles to fuel cells, we will be artificially injecting significant additional WV into the atmosphere (i.e., anthropogenic WV emissions), which could also potentially cause the positive feedback loop you're suggesting with your global warming scenario ("...we will likely see higher average humidity as well, which just increases the potential for run-away warming events.").
Is there potentially a "tipping point" for increased tropospheric WV emissions? I'm just not convinced we know for sure what will happen under this scenario.
Posted by: Carl | Feb 26, 2008 4:42:42 PM
Why not electric buses? it would have been cheaper to put up the the trolley cables. What ever happened to those experiments in refuelable zinc-air powered buses? metal-air fuel cells: the practical fuel cell.
Posted by: Ben | Feb 26, 2008 5:10:10 PM
Funny, in a car changing out the battery is not a practicle idea, but in an electric bus, changing out a depleted battery for a full one is a GREAT IDEA.
While electric overhead lines are the most efficient way to run an electric bus batteries will work much better in a real world bus environment then hydrogen.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Feb 26, 2008 5:39:36 PM
Carl,
It would seem a bit of first order analysis on the water vapor situation would be useful. Water gets into the atmosphere from several sources... evaporation and plant/animal respiration are probably the two main sources. This is a very large quantity of water vapor, as can be seen by the amount of rain that falls every year. Think of all the rivers flowing to the sea... not to mention all the rain over the oceans. According to one reference on Wikipedia, total rainfall would average out to about 1 meter per year for the entire earth. Do you really think the amount of water vapor coming out of cars could ever come close to that amount?
Posted by: RhapsodyInGlue | Feb 26, 2008 8:47:52 PM
From http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
"a large oak tree can transpire 40,000 gallons (151,000 liters) [of water] per year"
In most cities I would doubt that even if all the cars, trucks and buses were hydrogen they would even come close to putting out enough water vapor to make up for the atmospheric water vapor lost from the trees cleared to build the city. Further, plants account for only about 10% of the atmospheric water vapor... the other 90% is mostly evaporation.
Posted by: RhapsodyInGlue | Feb 26, 2008 9:06:13 PM
Have to agree with Rhapsody. CO2 has a residency time of centuries and millenia, water vapour hours and days. What's worse is that due to the thermal inertia of the oceans we haven't even begun to see the changes in climate we have already committed ourselves to as a result of our previous CO2 emmissions. The atmosphere keeps pumping the heat into the oceans so we don't notice much change in the temperatures as much, but it's a changin.
Posted by: MarkMC | Feb 26, 2008 9:27:21 PM
Um gas has more hydrogen in it then hydrogen does so guess what happens when you burn it:)
As for cost per mile if you look most of the extra cost is in that old spendy fuelcell and the labor needed to swap the old clunkers out so often.
Rgose 2 numbers would plummet with current gen fuelcells.
The rest is mainly a very bad fueling design and needing to lease a station for more then the cost of the fuel used;/
If you factor in a modern h2 tank and fueling system you would drop that cost closer to the 3 buck level.. if they are indeed using liquid h2 a gaseous h2 station and tanks would likely drop that cost greatly.
I suspect whats realy driving h2 right now is the FACT that an industrial fc and a good fueling system would ftop the cost per mile to maybe 4 bucks a mile but the fossil fuel side will climb from 1.61 to likely 4 a mile just from flue costs climbing.. say by 2015.
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see where things are headed in the mid/long term.
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 26, 2008 10:06:34 PM
Carl claims:
However, the exhaust from a fuel cell - water vapor - is, and is a more effective GHG that CO2.False to fact. Water accounts for as much as 66% of the greenhouse effect, but this requires it to have a concentration on the order of 20,000 ppm. Carbon dioxide is about 9-20% at a concentration of just 385 ppm, so it is far stronger per unit mass.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 26, 2008 10:17:16 PM
John - don't think that hydrogen itself is a GHG. However, the exhaust from a fuel cell - water vapor - is, and is a more effective GHG that CO2.
Others have addressed the fact that water vapor cycles out of the troposphere quickly. Water deposition in the stratosphere, on the other hand, could be a problem. Hydrogen has an atmospheric residence time of 2 or 3 years, IIRC, so some of it gets up to the stratosphere before oxidizing. On a very large scale leakage could perturb stratospheric composition.
Methane has the same issue, if not more so -- it has a longer atmospheric residence time, so more of it gets oxidized in the stratosphere.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Feb 27, 2008 4:59:04 AM
What's wrong with using a battery to power
your vehicle with a small ICE using e85 to
keep the battery charged?
Posted by: Brady | Feb 27, 2008 5:54:03 AM
After further thought - you guys are probably correct - the rate of WV emissions would likely be swamped by natural evaporation processes.
I recall seeing an IR absorbence spectrum of both CO2 and H2O in training I had (I'm an atmospheric scientist). It seems that H2O absorbed in a wider band than CO2 (and the bands did not coincide, IIRC). However, that's been many years and relying on memory at my age is an exercise in futility. :(
Posted by: Carl | Feb 27, 2008 6:57:08 AM
Carl: Maybe you remember something like this (unscaled) graph.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 27, 2008 7:14:12 AM
Uh.. this is one of the coldest years on record and the Arctic ice is actually a couple of centimeters thicker this year than last. When will all this 'global warming/sky is falling' propaganda end?
Posted by: beester | Feb 27, 2008 7:34:00 AM
All this global warming propaganda will end in couple thousand years, after the climate has recovered from human-caused global warming and the extinctions have stopped.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Feb 27, 2008 7:58:50 AM
E-P,
Yes, thanks! It was quite similar to that only I think it may have been a graphic of transmissivity. Again, it's been several years...
Posted by: Carl | Feb 27, 2008 8:03:13 AM
Schumacher now that is funny.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp
Posted by: beester | Feb 27, 2008 8:13:54 AM
@beester
You're spewing false information. You never heard of trends, averages, chaos theory, statistics? Go study the basics of science before making a fool of yourself.
Look at this:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm
The first section for the lazy ones:
March 15, 2007 � The December 2006-February 2007 U.S. winter season had an overall temperature that was near average, according to scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Precipitation was above average in much of the center of the nation, while large sections of the East, Southeast and West were drier than average. The global average temperature was the warmest on record for the December-February period.
Doesn't sound like global cooling to me. Yet.
Posted by: Anne | Feb 27, 2008 10:24:17 AM
Anne I am not "spewing" anything. I will leave that to yall religious zealots in the church of global warming. I am all in favor of higher gas mileage cars, reduction in the use of fossil fuels and so called greenhouse gases. However not to the point of disrupting the world economy. My central reason for the above is to reduce dependence on foreign oil though and not for the fear of global warmning which I still believe has not been and cannot be proven to exist and certainly cannot be proven to exist as a consequence of man's activities.
Posted by: beester | Feb 28, 2008 7:58:33 AM
Anne I am not "spewing" anything. I will leave that to yall religious zealots in the church of global warming.
Amd we'll leave the statistically innumerate non sequiturs to you. Your attempt to conclude that a single year's data point contradicts a trend in the data is just plain obtuse. The only real question is whether this action of yours is a consequence of your lack of intelligence or lack of morals.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Feb 28, 2008 8:56:35 AM
Obviously this WAS beurocratic bungling or somebody got kickbacks or something. Why would you make a Fuel Cell bus off of was seems like 50 year old technology. New fuel cells last LONGER then ICE engines and require zero maintenance. What in the world were they thinking?
Posted by: Bryan | Feb 28, 2008 1:04:39 PM
Bryan: "last LONGER then ICE engines" Have you got a source for that? (I've always thought that fuel cells would make good range extenders for PHEVs)
Posted by: Neil | Feb 28, 2008 4:19:38 PM
E-P:
Water molecule per se is much stronger GHG than molecule of CO2 (take a close look at adsorption bands in your picture). However, GHG effect is logarithmic, and water vapor adsorption bands are saturated many times over almost at any location (slight increase of adsorption spectra broadening still is possible in polar regions, where water vapor concentration is very small due to cold air). No amount of additional water could increase GHG effect anyhow significantly. Same, BTW, is true for CO2, for multiple reasons.
According to canonic GHG theory the highest effect increase in CO2 should have in Antarctica, where there is very little water vapor and huge landmass is affected much less by winds and ocean currents than Arctics. This effect in Antarctica is not existed: temperature in Antarctica is flat (with small local fluctuations up and down) for all 50 years of monitoring (while CO2 in air increased by 20% in same time). One of the reasons for this could be found in this article, if you want to wade through physics of the process:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateChange_Nicol.pdf
Anne:
Don’t you tired to make a fool from yourself? Global temperatures are sliding for over a year, with January-February 2008 anomaly of -0.7 C, or about how much Globe warmed in whole 20 century. Take a look, for example, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
BTW, it does not mean that GW stopped or cooling started. It does mean that the only source of doom AGW prediction – computer models, have same predicting ability as Sony Playstation.
Posted by: Andrey | Feb 28, 2008 4:51:15 PM
"New fuel cells last LONGER then ICE engines and require zero maintenance."
I would be interested in a reference on this one as well. It is my understanding that fuel cells still have a ways to go to match the lifespan of an ICE.
Posted by: sjc | Feb 29, 2008 5:29:20 AM
What is wrong with electric city buses with automated plug-in quick recharge stations at selected regular bus stops.
Such buses could be driven around the clock with very little maintenance, very low GHG and much lower operation cost.
Many Chinese cities are interested in similar buses. Why not in LA? +++.
Posted by: Harvey D | Feb 29, 2008 11:10:13 AM
@DS, To reiterate:
Golly Gee Jumping Willikers!!!! Who would have thought [/sarcasm]
I'm glad to see that they carefully conserved all the "donations" from the taxpayers for this "investment" by the prudent know-nothings called green politicians. [/sarcasm]
BTW... Ballard has announced that it has abandoned FC for autos; except for their "success" in ( ...sic, in finding suckers) in bus fleets...
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Mar 1, 2008 12:01:13 PM
@ Healthy Breeze,
CO2 is more persistant in th eatmospher than Water Vapor. But its presence is orders of magnitde less, and its absorbtion spectra much, much narrower. In short WV is a much more powerful GHG.
Any AGW partisan says yoiu must depend on a runaway "water vapor catastrophe", becsuse CO2 just can't alter the climate much.
Too bad there is no WV catstrophe, possible.
The day-night temperature change is much larger than any centennial climate change proposed. Not to mention the annual solstice temperature change from a summer noontime to a winter midnight. If a "tipping point" existed, we would have tipped either daily or yearly, already. We didn't; so it doesn't, exist, in the range of temperatures from 30 below zero to 120 degrees above.
The work of the serious scientists of the 1960's including Dr. Revell, questioned a prevalent but unproved hypothesis that the gas-liquid solubility of seawater was a buffered one-way function, entirely unlike the gas solubility for any other gas-liquid solubility mixture.
We have had a perfectly well-defined and good theroretical foundation for the relationship for gas-liquid solubility, called Henry's Law, that all chemsist use, daily.
By advocating their hypothesis in combination with a rise in atmospheric CO2 from a mere trace to a smidgeon more of a trace, these AGW icionoclasts were able to engender a potential catstrophe called anthropomorphic global warming. Provided events constinued that way long enough, like a few hundred years.
It has taken a generation of scientists to utterly dash this solubility thesis that AGW proponents fervently believe, and adopted. As it is necessary to their whole case. Scientific evidence has accumualted since then, and the UN IPCC committee of scientists have said that they are ready to concede to the overwhelming evidence in the next Interim Report. They did not do so this time,although they wished to do so, in deference to an appeal for more time for the buffered oceans partisans to prove their thesis. Else, it is already been decided and programmed for a return to well proven Henry's Law.
Then the residency of CO2 declines from whatever wacky persistance the AGW theorists can concieve, 50, 100, 300 hundred years, (they can't agree among themselves) to a mere 5.7 years as Henry's Law calculates and is confirmed by the washout rate of C14 based CO2, from the atmosphere. C14 based CO2 that got there as a result of air testing Nuclear weapons.
Numerous scientific results have measured CO2 and Ocean water solubility under "buffered conditions" of warm, cold, frigid, and tropical seawater with various salinities and concentrations of calcium carbonate. The accumulating scientific evidence all says Henry's Law is correct.
When, not if, the IPCC acts, the presumed power of CO2 to alter the climate shrinks in direct proportion to CO2's atmospheric residence time. If a given CO2 molecule is atmsophere resident for 5.7 years, as apposed to 300 hundred years, then its power to alter climate is reduced by the proportion of 5.7 to 300, or to less than 2% of what was theorized, and incorporated in the GCM computer models. Furthermore the accumaulation slows and the return to "normality" whatever that may be, is accelerated.
Then the projected power to alter climate by a few degrees per century shrinks to the power to alter a few hundreths of a single degree per century. This seems to fall more in line with observations.
You members of the Church of AGW, will have to seek a new Apocalypse.
Sorry Anne. You might try Zen Buddism or dabble in Methodism.
Or you coud convert to Algore's Southern Baptist divinity school theology. His failure to follow the teachings of his sainted Dr. Revelle, the sainted teacher of one of the few science courses he ever took, will be about as accurate as his faiure to understand Baptist theology. And you seemed to like the consequences.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Mar 1, 2008 1:02:29 PM
What ballaed said was they no longer make that TYPE of fc snf no longer handle systems integration. In short no they arnt gone and dropped car fc.. The just dont make that old style of fuelcell AND they leave building and designing of systems up to bus and car companies and just make the fuelcells now.
They only needed to handle that junk until electric drive systems design matured and they could depend on electric drive systems companies to do that worl for them.
In short its no longer the stone age of e;ectric transport and golly gee willikers there are companies alot more suited to the task of slapping fc to motor to tank to reverse the neutron flow.. er whatever than ballard is.. and they are far cheaper too.
Posted by: wintermane | Mar 1, 2008 1:56:46 PM
This demonstration was very useful because failures can be very useful and this failure was total.
We now know that it is not time for this particular alternative.
In the short to medium term I'd suggest concentrating on clean diesel tech.
Posted by: Sam | Mar 1, 2008 8:04:41 PM
People keep underesti,ating just what bush did woth his h2 push.
The tech in this blunder is pre bush. Vush moved h2 forwatf a century in just a few years and so now everything they used is as relvant as a studabaker.
The good news is modern tech is being used to make modern fc busses so we should get data sooner or later as to just how much has changed.
Posted by: wintermane | Mar 2, 2008 2:04:13 PM
I'm always amused when people bring up the water vapor issue while discussing fuel cells. Don't forget that water vapor is already one of the primary exhaust components in petroleum-fueled vehicles.
Posted by: mulad | Mar 5, 2008 10:39:59 AM
