sorry if i was not clearly enough sarcastic. I should have said Foolcells. I just wanted to point out one good argument for all lobbyists to support Tesla and Elon. Clever move from them. -akkuJukka
2013/6/22, Martin WINLOW <[email protected]>: > Jsl, > > I'm afraid the issues you mention are only the most obvious... but I have > taken the bait and so here are some of the rest! (sorry if I've bored you > all with this before)... > > 1. The main source of hydrogen currently is from 'cracked' (steam reformed) > natural gas - i.e. it is effectively a fossil fuel. The efficiency of the > steam reformation process is approximately 70%. Alternatively, electrolysis > can be used to make H2 from water - but this uses much more electricity to > make H2 than just using the electricity in EVs directly would. You also > need water - a resource that is itself getting scarcer and scarcer. > 2. A typical fuel cell it is only MAX 40% efficient. > 3. To put enough H2 in a package sufficiently practical to put in a car to > give it 'adequate' range is enormously expensive due to its lack of > compressibility. It isn't LPG or propane etc which will compress to liquid > with a few atmospheres - standard filling pressures are 350 & 700 BAR > (atmospheres or 4900/9800 PSI!) meaning very strong and therefore big, heavy > (and VERY expensive) containment vessels. > 4. To store and transport H2 has all the same issues as 3. For this > reason, to build a network of equivalent motorway-style refilling stations > would require HUGE sums of money compared to petrol/diesel (or electric) > designs and more huge sums of money to service it. > 5. Having all that H2 sloshing about everywhere you look would be a recipe > for colossal disasters on a daily basis. It would be much more dangerous > than petrol - hence the reason the only London based H2 refuelling point was > shut during the Olympics causing all London-based trial H2 powered vehilces > to either not be used - or worse (and don't laugh) truck them 50 miles to > Swindon and back for refuelling! > 6. Fuel cells capable of powering a vehicle are very expensive at US$50-100k > and they have not fallen in price much and probably won't for a very long > time. > 7. H2 is incredibly dangerous - far more so than petrol or any other common > flammable gas. The main reason for this is because it has a very wide > explosive/ignition mix range with air e.g. *when leaking*. Also, if it > ignites, its flame is near invisible. Consequently, a leak is much more > likely to lead to an explosion than other fuels. > > The list goes on. Despite all the posts I have made about this on various > web sites and forums, I have never had a single response saying I'm wrong > and why. The reverse in fact, I have had several learned individuals tell > me I am absolutely right! If so, why is so much money - most of it provided > by Government - and effort being wasted on fuel cell research? > > One of life's little mysteries, I supose. MW > > > On 22 Jun 2013, at 11:38, John Lindsay wrote: > >> I saw a Ballard fuel cell system this week. >> >> 5KW in a large cabinet. Two cells each producing 24 volts about the size >> of four shoe boxes each. A convertor the size of a two draw filing cabinet >> that turns methanol mixed with water into hydrogen for the cells. >> >> It would make an awesome battery charger but it costs around $30K >> including the two door cabinet. >> >> Fuel isn't cheap either and the tank costs $250 to fill and lasts 6 or 7 >> hours. >> >> Don't you hate how economic reality gets in the way of electric dreams? >> >> Solar keeps getting cheaper because it's silicon based tech. >> >> Fuel cells are full of platinum and aren't getting cheaper until the >> electrochemistry uses something else as catalysts. >> >> jsl >> >> On 22/06/2013, at 7:53 PM, Martin WINLOW <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jukka! Shame on you. Fuel cells in Teslas (ones that work, are >>> practical and don't cost twice as much as the rest of the car) are a pipe >>> dream. If you haven't already, I suggest you read... >>> http://planetforlife.com/h2/h2conclude.html ...and the associated pages >>> (the link is to the conclusion). It is a bit dated now (2004) but the >>> laws of physics and chemistry have not changed much, so the conclusion is >>> still valid. H2 fuel cells as a replacement for fossil fuelled ICEs (or >>> battery electric drive trains for that matter) in personal transport >>> vehicles do not work and probably never will. For a host of reasons. >>> Amen. >>> >>> Regards, MW. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub >> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org >> For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA >> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) >> > > _______________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/jarviju#about _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
