Comments on: BMW and Toyota Plan to Lead Hydrogen Fuel Cells to Commercial Viability

By: DennisVanaria

DennisVanaria — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:43:07 +0000

I'm very happy to read this. This is the type of manual that needs to be given and not the accidental misinformation that's at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this greatest doc. Click Here I was suggested this website by means of my cousin. I'm no longer certain whether or not this publish is written via him as nobody else understand such precise about my trouble. You're incredible! Thanks!

By: John K.

John K. — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 07:01:46 +0000

Nice how the article does NOT mention that we already have the infrastructure for recharging BEVs (the electric grid), but we do NOT have an infrastructure for liquid hydrogen for filling up FCEVs.

That is a HUGE cost that the FC proponents will use their lobbyists to force American tax payers to subsidize. That is unnecessary w/BEVs. The US doesn't have the money to waste on a "hydrogen highway."

By: Mike Morris

Mike Morris — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:30:42 +0000

Very impressive… nice article… I found a link concerning fuel cell technology and municipal waste water treatment plants that produce three value streams which are Heat, Hydrogen, and Electricity! I believe we should pursue this quickly!!

Video links… paste n copy

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315

Also found this Nat Gas / Fuel Cell Hybrid project from Enbridge… Again, Impressive!

http://enbridge.rawintegrated.com/hybrid/hybrid_complete.html

By: alan ward

alan ward — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:07:23 +0000

hydrogen being less efficient, 50 percent we can make up all the ground with a system that makes hydrogen direct from the sun that is 10 to 16 percent efficient over time time over money over areas add cost. so this is no problem 5* aproximately. example dr sorell nsw university sydney australia, titanium tile ceramic direct with out moving parts,the area stipulated, once sold and payed for the 50% disapears and become attractive, manufacture, and add uses, there and others attempts, are also happening with others, research,costs obsorbed.although i dont know where exactly the efficiecy problem lay,,.lie.

By: John Bailo

John Bailo — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 23:02:13 +0000

I love this article.

It reaffirms all the things I've been saying why expensive and heavy batteries are a completely unworkable technology.

It's like not a single one of their advocates even understand the problem of scaling with distance compared to a hydrogen fuel tank...the drones just swing their arms around wildly and burp some canned script about Hindenburgs (which burned from the diesel fuel, not hydrogen).

Sanity might be returning. Hydrogen and its subprojects is a technology that can reform our entire planet and economy! Let's go!

By: Mike Halpin

Mike Halpin — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:00:19 +0000

I do not want to get into the fuel cell verses battery debate each will play a part as we move away from ICE. vehicles to electric. I personally think that hydrogen is a wonderful element for generating electricity as it can be obtained from a variety of sources. Fuel cells do have advantages over batteries as we can see in the fork lift industry where many of the major companies are pulling out batteries and replacing them with fuel cells because they are more cost efficient!
Mike H. founder HYDROGENHEADS.

By: Roy_H

Roy_H — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:17:51 +0000

Well I am amazed at how successful Fuel Cell development has been. Throwing enough government money at it has produced good results. However I still think this is a flop as it is a race between FCVs and BEVs. BEVs will always be cheaper to run and have the very attractive feature of being charged from home. FCVs will keep you going to the oil companies for your fill-up. For short trips around town the BEV is a clear winner. For longer trips the FCV has the appeal of faster fill-up. But how often, and how fast, does it have to be? Lets turn that around and say how fast does charging up your battery have to be.

Right now the top line Model S can go 250 to 300 miles on a charge and takes 4 hours to fill. No one wants to wait 4 hours during a long trip, but other high power chargers are available for LEAF, i-MiEV etc. that could reduce this to about 30 minutes. 30 minutes is a convenient time to take a break and get something to eat. I maintain this is fast enough. My point is that once batteries are good for 300 miles and can be charged in less than 30 minutes, then FCVs have lost their advantage.

Batteries are advancing at a rapid pace, so FCVs will have a small window of time to be considered desirable. If you buy an FCV, you will find it obsolete in a few years, and if the government wastes $Bs on paying for fuel stations it will be the worst boondoggle in the industry.

By: Roy_H

Roy_H — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:47:26 +0000

Al Bunzel; Ceramic fuel cells are very bulky and heavy vs power output. This makes this option even worse than batteries. That is why you see these marketed only for stationary applications.

By: Al Bunzel

Al Bunzel — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:20:23 +0000

This is one of the advantages of Electric Cars. You can power them from batteries or from fuel cells.

In my opinion, car makers should rather focus on Electric Car development as it does not matter whether the energy source is from a battery of fuel cell. The advantage of that for a car maker is that they are not locked into a type of energy source.

I’ve even seen ceramic fuel cells ( http://www.cfcl.com.au ) that converts natural gas into electricity. As far as I am aware, there is no automotive version , but I can’t see why it can’t be done.