Electric cars are a pipe dream

That isn't what I meant. I was referring to the current demand for fuel cells. I had thought that was clear but perhaps not. I'll re-phrase it;

Fuel cells are expensive, but much of that is because we don't make many. If we made as many fuel cells as we do cars, they wouldn't be so expensive.

Does that make more sense?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No

You are claiming that the fundamental cost problem of fuel cells has to do with not making a lot of them, but if that were the case one would set up a assembly line to make many hundreds of thousands of them because they would have a ready use in automobiles.

But they are too expensive, and it isn't the assembly cost that is the issue.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen_report_intro_text.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ironically such a car was on the cover of Popular Science - in 1975. (Conventional batteries instead of molten salt but same basic idea.) Apparently it was incredibly loud.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Partly. In the sense that making more of the would reduce the unit price, like it always has for every other thing we manufacture (with relatively abundant raw materials).

Don't you think that's true? If, for whatever reason of consumer demand, military use, subsidy policies, etc the number of fuel cells produced doubled, is your claim that it would increase the unit price rather than decreasing it? I don't see how that can be supported by fact or reason.

Fuel cells as they are currently manufactured are prohibitively expensive for the majority of people. Just like personal computers, cell phones, lasers, steel alloys, table sugar etc were when they were first used.

I don't know what the hydrogen thing you posted was for. I don't think that's a good solution at all. Terrible energy storage medium. If you'd care to look you can see that I was advocating running cars by making liquid fuels from electricity (or even just concentrated heat) and atmospheric carbon.

They could easily be internal combustion engine cars, it would be just as carbon neutral, but for people who insist on electric motors as opposed to cylinder engines, they have to wait for advances in fuel cell manufacture (or comparable device.)

I think there are several feasible solutions.

 

1975? I'm surprised the technology was up to it. Interesting article.

Today I think two smaller turbines would be better. Then you can have them spin so fast that much of the sound is beyond the range of human (or dog) hearing.

 

Turbines are pretty cool, but unfortunately they're not that efficient overall. Their one big advantage is lots of power in a small space, so perhaps for a very rarely used range booster (i.e. on an EV that normally has a 100 mile range) they'd make sense. That way you've got the power when you need it but don't have to carry around the weight of a recip engine.

 

It has an impact, but it's proportionate to the amount of labor required that can be automated.
When the fundamental issue is the cost of the actual materials, then volume doesn't necessarily have much to do with the cost.

Fuel cells are not labor intensive to make, they are material intensive.

Not the issue with the fuel cells themselves, but it is similar to the costs of changing the infrastructure to support an alternate fuel, in both cases the initial people using them paid for the upfront costs of making them. Can't be helped, but the govt can jump start it with incentives and infrastructure grants (which it would do if fuel cells were viable, but they are not)

I used that because using H2 as fuel still yields the cheapest fuel cell and that's because H2, as we make it is very pure.
CH4 is not, and the impurities are still a big problem.
H2 as a fuel is not great, but it's still, overall better in fuel cells for autos than NG is.

What feasible solutions is the industry unaware of?

 

How much do the raw materials cost? (For the most expensive type you can think of if you like.)

I don't know. Is that important? Which industry? Is there some reason to expect them to be unaware? The energy industries or car manufacturers?

I'd feel more confident describing the behavior of industry in terms of what they can make the easiest profit on. As I understand it that's something different to whether a particular machine would work.

 

electrics,and especialy electric hybrids are here to stay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fygtg9qtJpU

www.teslamotors.com

 

To the general problem of transport producing CO2 pollution, full ev for medium range planned trips (local deliveries, buses), hybrids with a full sized battery for dual usage customers (commuters who sometimes go further), hybrids with a small battery for frequent long journeys (salesmen, couriers, I don't know) , electric public transport (subways, trams, trains, taxis), synthesis instead of fossils for liquids, nuclear; concentrated solar thermal; geo; hydro; instead of fossils for the grid, removal of the entertainment element from car designs (race style ones, suvs), standardization of battery packs and rental model to allow fast refueling.

There are lots of things which would help.

To the specific problem of what technology is best for a car's power plant, and whether there is any situation where a type of fuel cell might be included, I think sometimes it can be.

Or rather, sometimes it is, since there are bus fleets and sports cars in use today which feature fuel cells.

 

The PEM membrane and the need for Platinum as a catalyst comes to mind.

The cost of the materials used in making fuel cells has always been the thing that has kept the cost high. In some cases it's raw materials like Platinum, but in other cases it's the cost/time/difficulty in making the materials needed.

 

And all those are available.
Just as this thread shows, they are expensive and because most of our Electricity comes from fossil fuels, CO2 savings from switching to EVs, compared to high mileage IC/hybrid cars like the Prius is minor at best (the plug in IC/hybrid from Ford, the Fusion Energi is supposed to get 100 mpge.

Many of them already are electric, those that aren't probably can't easily be made to be.

Sort of a different issue.
We do use bio fuels, but I'm not aware of any cost effective means of synthesis of liquid fuels.
We have nuclear, but most of the groups pushing reducing CO2 are also against Nuclear, the net of which, in the US, no new nukes are under construction and our 104 plants just keep getting older.

Not sure I agree with the first point, the second makes little sense beyond fleet vehicles.

Not yet.
We do have a federally funded program run by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory exploring use of Fuel Cells in Buses, and it's been going on for over a decade. Major funding for vehicles started in 2006, and at this point we have 25 buses running on fuel cells, but at a cost of over $3 million per bus, (they are all using Hydrogen as their fuel source, which is not likely to extend to personal use, for that we'll likely need NG based fuel cells).

More to the point, reliability/longevity of the fuel cells has been a severe problem, which they are making progress on, but still as of end of 2011 we still only have one bus with 10,000 hours on the same fuel cell (need 30,000 to be viable).

 

If you're sure of that, then you must know what the cost is. Please tell me.

 

If by "easily" you mean "equally as profitable" I think you're right (for the time being). If you're talking about some technical barrier to an end to end replacement of fossil oil powered transport, I don't believe it exists any more.

Of course it's not going to cost the same to synthesize fuel compared to using fuel that another geological era has already synthesized for you, that isn't a fair comparison. It would be fairer to compare synthesis with burning fossil oil and then recapturing the CO2.

I'd advocate replacing all current nuclear and fossil baseload stations with new nuclear reactors. It would reduce both CO2 and radioactive pollution.

1) If something is dangerous to other people I don't care how fun you find it, it is wrong.
2) Why not? Is there some practical barrier to standardization?

Isn't the rare metal content that makes up the majority of the cost easy and well worthwhile to recycle? To me it only seems a problem if you make so few it isn't worth having a recycling program. You pay for the manufacturing and the consumable (polymer based) part, and the metals get reused.

What about the Brazilian or Canadian fleets? Or the ones Daimler made or Ford (rentals) ? There's no sense in which they failed to work.

 

Well yeah, like I pointed out in the previous post, they use Platinum for a catalyst and it costs more than gold and they use a as polymer electrolyte membrane that is apparently very expensive to make. (note the costs have already come down from where they were, Astronomical to just Very high, but it's not due to volume issues, its still a materials problem)

Last November Toyota released the price of their Fuel Cell vehicle for 2015, and it's an SUV that will go for ~$138,000 in Europe.

The Fuel Cell buses I refered to earlier are costing from $2.3 to $3 million each.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_exchange_membrane_fuel_cell

 

Belief doesn't mean diddly squat.

Oh, so you're a price is no object kind of solution then?

So what?
Most of the people who want to reduce CO2 don't agree with you.

Why do you think your definition of what looks good is right and those who disagree with you are wrong?

Yeah, every car maker is doing it their own way, for their own reasons, and most are not making the batteries easily swappable.

Don't know, just know the up front cost is high, and much of that is for the PEM and that's not recyclable.

That's hardly a fleet.
Canada has fewer buses than we do and Brazil has 4.

These demo fleets are made up of very expensive buses and so far, reliability of the fuel cells has been an issue and they are ALL using Hydrogen as the fuel source because of the contamination issue with CH4.

As long as H2 is the fuel, it's use will remain in just fleets, and that's IF they can get the cost down and the reliability up.

 

More people believe we will make some flying device built on unknown energy than an electric car that works better than gas. I think there all dreaming, but so am I. Thus our daily ideas will remain more toward the future than tomorrow. Have I been understood?

I think not. Those who have no immediate innovative attention to the area will whimsically look to a more futuristic idea than something so many have found to be an impossability. A new perspective untried by any which usually falls apart 12 seconds after the idea is revealed. Thus the only the ideas which no response is recieved are the ones that must be tried to avoid any further innovation of unworkable conditions set forth by the masses.

-NH

 

Until they drive a Tesla, that is.

With the Tesla, misconceptions about electric vehicles usually fall apart in approximately 3.8 seconds.

 

And are regained 100 miles later.

 

Tesla say their model S, with the large battery option, will do 300miles at 55mph. They also say the batteries are good for 7 years, or 100,000 miles. After which time you replace them I suppose; then it does another 100,000?