Comments on: Fuel Cells in the Here and Now http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/ is your source for the latest information on fuel cells. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:10:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-109 John Trocciola Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:44:22 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-109 I guess you have not beenreading the FC news; Ihave been "living it". FC's: Fit in the car; batteries are very, very heavy Have the goal life Can start and shut down in cold weather; I think batteries have an issue with cold weather Have good range; batteries have limited range Have no emissions Have the right power output Only thing missing is cost and with a large enough order that will happen too Battery cars , in addition to infrastructure issues, require an invention or two and that is what I am referring too. And since you are a big nuclear advocate the electricity for making the H2 " will be too cheap to measure"; so that is not really an issue. I think I heard the cost issue from the nukes a while back I guess you have not beenreading the FC news; Ihave been “living it”. FC’s:
Fit in the car; batteries are very, very heavy
Have the goal life
Can start and shut down in cold weather; I think batteries have an issue with cold weather
Have good range; batteries have limited range
Have no emissions
Have the right power output
Only thing missing is cost and with a large enough order that will happen too

Battery cars , in addition to infrastructure issues, require an invention or two and that is what I am referring too.
And since you are a big nuclear advocate the electricity for making the H2
” will be too cheap to measure”; so that is not really an issue. I think I heard the cost issue from the nukes a while back

]]> By: David Redstone http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-105 David Redstone Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:42:39 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-105 "We need to get out our message which is that if we go reneawable or nuclear ( uck) a reasonable alternative is to use the power to make H2 which could then be used to refuel fuel cell cars." How do you figure that converting to and from H2 can ever be better than charging and discharging batteries? "In this case at least the fuel cell is “ready” with regards to technology and range as opposed to requiring a battery invention, lots of recharging stations etc." You're kidding, right? No one has demonstrated that FCs are "ready" for cars. We could displace huge amounts of oil with electricity if only people were willing to slightly change their <i>behavior</i>. This article says it very well: "Unfortunately, the shiny new solar-powered hydrogen vehicle fueling station that recently spread its gossamer wings just east of the SMUD yard is anything but the future. It’s the desperate waking fantasy of a casino culture that can’t shake the feeling that the next jackpot is one pull of the lever away. . . “The widespread belief that hydrogen is going to save technological societies from the fast-approaching oil and gas reckoning is probably a good index of how delusional our oil-addicted society has become”" http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=677680 “We need to get out our message which is that if we go reneawable or nuclear ( uck) a reasonable alternative is to use the power to make H2 which could then be used to refuel fuel cell cars.”

How do you figure that converting to and from H2 can ever be better than charging and discharging batteries?

“In this case at least the fuel cell is “ready” with regards to technology and range as opposed to requiring a battery invention, lots of recharging stations etc.”

You’re kidding, right? No one has demonstrated that FCs are “ready” for cars.

We could displace huge amounts of oil with electricity if only people were willing to slightly change their behavior.

This article says it very well:
“Unfortunately, the shiny new solar-powered hydrogen vehicle fueling station that recently spread its gossamer wings just east of the SMUD yard is anything but the future. It’s the desperate waking fantasy of a casino culture that can’t shake the feeling that the next jackpot is one pull of the lever away. . . “The widespread belief that hydrogen is going to save technological societies from the fast-approaching oil and gas reckoning is probably a good index of how delusional our oil-addicted society has become””
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=677680

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-101 John Trocciola Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:57:39 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-101 This comment is not really related to the title of this blog. Did anyone see Al Gore on Meet The Press? He is advocating that electricty be 100 % reneable and some how links that noble goal with reducing our dependence on imported oil. As we all know very little oil is used for generating electricty so generating electricty would not reduce imported oil unless we can somehow use electricty in cars and trucks, which would by the way require tremendous increases in generating capacity. He did mumble something about electric cars but as we know would require a better battery, recharging stations etc. Very challenging items. On TV we hears similar arguments that somehow nuclear power would end our dependence on imported oil;in those cases no mention of the need for electric cars. We need to get out our message which is that if we go reneawable or nuclear ( uck) a reasonable alternative is to use the power to make H2 which could then be used to refuel fuel cell cars. In this case at least the fuel cell is "ready" with regards to technology and range as opposed to requiring a battery invention, lots of recharging stations etc. This comment is not really related to the title of this blog. Did anyone see Al Gore on Meet The Press? He is advocating that electricty be 100 % reneable and some how links that noble goal with reducing our dependence on imported oil. As we all know very little oil is used for generating electricty so generating electricty would not reduce imported oil unless we can somehow use electricty in cars and trucks, which would by the way require tremendous increases in generating capacity. He did mumble something about electric cars but as we know would require a better battery, recharging stations etc. Very challenging items.
On TV we hears similar arguments that somehow nuclear power would end our dependence on imported oil;in those cases no mention of the need for electric cars.
We need to get out our message which is that if we go reneawable or nuclear ( uck) a reasonable alternative is to use the power to make H2 which could then be used to refuel fuel cell cars.
In this case at least the fuel cell is “ready” with regards to technology and range as opposed to requiring a battery invention, lots of recharging stations etc.

]]> By: Joachim Colling http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-92 Joachim Colling Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:38:50 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-92 Stationary fuel cells seem to be (near to?)commercially viable. I just looked a a dabase listing most? of the installed units. But the information is dismal. I would like to see a catalogue of all types of stationary units on the market with information of their type and capacity, price (unsubsidized), delivery time, length of life, reference installations, price per KWh, costs and security of operation etc. There might be quite a number of home owners who might buy one even if the price for its energy per KWh is a bit higher than the grid. Selling stationary fuel cells like Singer sold the sewing machines, thats the way to go. Stationary fuel cells seem to be (near to?)commercially viable. I just looked a a dabase listing most? of the installed units. But the information is dismal.
I would like to see a catalogue of all types of stationary units on the market with information of their type and capacity, price (unsubsidized), delivery time, length of life, reference installations, price per KWh, costs and security of operation etc.
There might be quite a number of home owners who might buy one even if the price for its energy per KWh is a bit higher than the grid. Selling stationary fuel cells like Singer sold the sewing machines, thats the way to go.

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-53 John Trocciola Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:39:21 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-53 Rei, Have you ever spoken to the platinum miners? Well I have and their comment was "If you need more platinum we will just put another mining hole in the ground" Rei,
Have you ever spoken to the platinum miners?
Well I have and their comment was “If you need more platinum we will just put another mining hole in the ground”

]]> By: Rei http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-51 Rei Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:58:40 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-51 "REI, While the cost of platinum is part of the total cost of a stationary fuel cell please remember that about 90% of it is reclaimed. So in effect the fuel cell owner only “rents” the platinum." That doesn't change it from needing to be extracted in the first place. It's not like there are tonnes of platinum currently sitting out there in old fuel cells that will be being recycled as new ones are introduced. “REI,
While the cost of platinum is part of the total cost of a stationary fuel cell please remember that about 90% of it is reclaimed. So in effect the fuel cell owner only “rents” the platinum.”

That doesn’t change it from needing to be extracted in the first place. It’s not like there are tonnes of platinum currently sitting out there in old fuel cells that will be being recycled as new ones are introduced.

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-50 John Trocciola Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:24:49 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-50 REI, While the cost of platinum is part of the total cost of a stationary fuel cell please remember that about 90% of it is reclaimed. So in effect the fuel cell owner only "rents" the platinum. REI,
While the cost of platinum is part of the total cost of a stationary fuel cell please remember that about 90% of it is reclaimed. So in effect the fuel cell owner only “rents” the platinum.

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-49 John Trocciola Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:21:36 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-49 Rick, None of we fuel cell advocates are even a little bit confused about what a fuel cell "is" or "isn't". We all fully realize that it is a "energy conversion device" and not a source of energy. So no need to further lecture us. Rick,
None of we fuel cell advocates are even a little bit confused about what a fuel cell “is” or “isn’t”. We all fully realize that it is a “energy conversion device” and not a source of energy.
So no need to further lecture us.

]]> By: Bob Rose http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-46 Bob Rose Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:34:12 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-46 I promised to provide a citation of federal tax and other support for various energy technologies and fuels. The Energy Information Administration, responding to a Congressional request, published something recently that is as good as I have seen. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html For the battery EV advocates here, EIA estimates the "tax expenditure" (revenue foregone) of the battery EV and hybrid vehicle tax incentive to be #250 million in 2007. See pp 23-24. I promised to provide a citation of federal tax and other support for various energy technologies and fuels. The Energy Information Administration, responding to a Congressional request, published something recently that is as good as I have seen. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html

For the battery EV advocates here, EIA estimates the “tax expenditure” (revenue foregone) of the battery EV and hybrid vehicle tax incentive to be #250 million in 2007. See pp 23-24.

]]> By: JAF http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/fuel-cells-in-the-here-and-now/#comment-42 JAF Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:08:16 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=20#comment-42 As I see it there needs to be separation of the pros and cons of fuel cells by application: 1) Stationary power - fuel cells, like coal and natural gas fired plants, convert fuel and air to electricity. Large stationary fuel cells will most likely use some form of hydrocarbon fuel such as coal, natural gas, biomass, waste chemicals, etc. as the fuel source. the major difference is that they have the potential to be 70-80% efficient compared to 40% efficiency of large coal plants or 15-25% using reciprocating engines. Thus on TCO (total cost of ownership) and environmental benefit, fuel cells will eventually have the value proposition exceeding conventional generation techniques. And they will have the 24/7/365 operations that are missing from solar and wind. As for the subsidy situation - we spend about $1billion a day in Iraq. Just imagine if even 1/4 of that money was financed through taxes on oil... And is the nuclear industry going to finance the building of Yucca mountain waste storate? 2) Transportation. Fuel cells show the most promise here. Our passion for free-wheeling is clear. It also makes us most vulnerable to the worst areas of the world. The vast majority of oil we import goes towards transportation. Clearly battery powered cars can be part of the solution with town cars, commuting, etc. So can great increases in public transportation (though this is not politically possible). But for short- and long-haul trucking, long commutes and many other transportation applications, batteries may never provide sufficient energy. Hybrids are showing us the way and it's quite reasonable to imagine when fuel cells, with their 40-50% efficiencies will replace ICEs at 15-25% efficiencies. Again, by TCO, fuel cells have a significant value proposition. 3) Others - there are many, such as transportation and transportable auxiliary power, combined heat and power, autonomous vehicles, etc. where the combination of power density, energy density and efficiency of fuel cells make them quite attractive. As I see it there needs to be separation of the pros and cons of fuel cells by application:

1) Stationary power - fuel cells, like coal and natural gas fired plants, convert fuel and air to electricity. Large stationary fuel cells will most likely use some form of hydrocarbon fuel such as coal, natural gas, biomass, waste chemicals, etc. as the fuel source. the major difference is that they have the potential to be 70-80% efficient compared to 40% efficiency of large coal plants or 15-25% using reciprocating engines. Thus on TCO (total cost of ownership) and environmental benefit, fuel cells will eventually have the value proposition exceeding conventional generation techniques. And they will have the 24/7/365 operations that are missing from solar and wind.
As for the subsidy situation - we spend about $1billion a day in Iraq. Just imagine if even 1/4 of that money was financed through taxes on oil… And is the nuclear industry going to finance the building of Yucca mountain waste storate?

2) Transportation. Fuel cells show the most promise here. Our passion for free-wheeling is clear. It also makes us most vulnerable to the worst areas of the world. The vast majority of oil we import goes towards transportation. Clearly battery powered cars can be part of the solution with town cars, commuting, etc. So can great increases in public transportation (though this is not politically possible). But for short- and long-haul trucking, long commutes and many other transportation applications, batteries may never provide sufficient energy. Hybrids are showing us the way and it’s quite reasonable to imagine when fuel cells, with their 40-50% efficiencies will replace ICEs at 15-25% efficiencies. Again, by TCO, fuel cells have a significant value proposition.

3) Others - there are many, such as transportation and transportable auxiliary power, combined heat and power, autonomous vehicles, etc. where the combination of power density, energy density and efficiency of fuel cells make them quite attractive.

]]>