Hydrogen Fuel Cells

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Griff
Syc, Shouldn't your Metro be doing better than that, mileage wise?

You know Griff, I thought the same thing when I first started driving it (2 years ago). IIRC, the mileage stated on Metros was 43 city/49 highway. This being for the 3-cylinder 2-door hatchback. Now then, my suspicions as to the lower fuel mileage:

--I have a 4-cylinder, not a 3-cylinder.
--I have an automatic, not a manual transmission.
--I do not drive the speed limit in most cases, therefore using more fuel.
--The car is now 7 years old (although I use semi-synthetic oil now).
--The gas mileage numbers were incorrect to begin with. (When they first came out, they were touted as 53/58. The next year, I believe it went down to 43/49.)
--Tougher emissions controls (I may be reaching on that one).

I may do some further research. Given that the car is getting up in years and mileage, I try to take even better care of it now...we need it to run at least one more year.

[tw]

Originally posted by Griff
I see it as simple collusion meant to guarantee market dominance for the big three. I wonder what tw thinks?

Geo Metro - one of the more reliable cars (somewhere around 60 or 70% on the reliability scale where best vehicles are 100%). High problem areas were electrical, exhaust, body integrity, and hardware. Noisey, rough ride, high gas mileage. Sold in 1995 with a 3 or 4 cylinder engine that only did 55 and 54 Hp per liter - which is why they had so little acceleration. According to Consumer Report tests, the 4 cylinder, 70 Hp Metro averaged only 29 MPG compared to 31 MPG for the 106 Hp Honda Civic and 30 MPG for the 100 Hp Toyota Corolla.

There was a 'strange bird' Geo Metro sold in limited quantities that featured a Brazilian Diesel. Owner claimed up to 50+ MPG when following interstate trucks which is understandable when one understands difference between diesel and gas engines. That understanding is part of the "hydrogen" discussion.


There was no Chevy Impala anywhere in mid 1990s. However you could get a 350 V8 in the Chevy Caprice that did 260 Hp or in the Chevy Suburban that did 200 Hp. World standard engine technology dicated that 260 Hp was provided by 3.8 V-6; 200 Hp would be a 3.0 liter V-6.


Hydorgen Fuel: Hydrogen must be manufactured from some energy source. What would that energy source be? We use gasoline and diesel which provide high 'energy per pound'. Hydrogen just does not provide that. Hydrogent has other more serious problems.

Hydrogen gas handling is extremely difficult. Hydrogen is a small atom meaning that material, joints, and tanks that don't leak propane can still leak hydrogen at dangerous levels. For example, copper pipes would leak hydrogen. Problem made more dangerous since hydrogen leaks cannot be smelled AND hydrogen burns in a flame that cannot be seen. You would not know a hydrogen fire exists until you had walked into it and started burning.

I have done extensive work with gas processing. We test with helium using leak testing equipment that measures one part in 10 to power 8. These $10,000+ leak checking devices must be applied to anything constructed or repaired involving hydrogen - including valving that requires much tighter machine tolerances. In short, a hydrogen distribution system is well beyond anything currently used AND hydrogen still requires some fuel to create hydrogen. All that heavy, extraneous support equipment makes the lower 'energy per pound' hydrogen even worse as a transported energy source.

Radical "new breakthroughs" are not radical or new. Take nuclear power, as example. It still was a steam power plant using the same steam driven electric turbines. We simply replaced a coal furnace or gas driven turbine with nuclear power heating. Same must be expected of this 'hydrogen' research. It will not be some breakthrough technology. It must be a upgrade or variation of existing technologies. Only 'Ronnie Raygun' leaders believe that any new technology is completely new and radical. Hydorgen can address part of the problem. But as a new fuel source for radical new vehicles .... let's get real here.

Step up to Ballard in Vancover. Hydrogen fuel cell is a rechargeable battery - not an engine. We won't store and distribute massive hydrogen stores to large, high pressure tanks in cars. The car creates hydrogen from its standard energy systems, and uses the energy when required. The car must still create hydrogen from a high 'energy per pound' fuel source. The problem is not new energy sources. The problem is that we are probably using less than 20% of the thermodynamic energy in gasoline - we are that grossly inefficient.

Our problem is not our fuel source. Our problem is efficient application of energy.

Honda and Toyota's so called major innovation is nothing more than an adaptation of an American innovation created before WWII - the diesel electric locomotive. It is not radical, breakthrough technology. It is an upgrade of current technology.

Far more energy from fuel because the locomotive applies energy of diesel fuel better(more efficiently) to changing loads. That is what Honda and Toyota are doing with hybrids - adapting an old, well understood technology to automobiles.... finally. The bottleneck in hybrid auto technology is the battery. Even lithium batteries will not have the necessary 'Kwatt per pound' necessary to create the efficiencies we require. Ah-h-h-h but such efficiencies were suggested in the Apollo moon program that stored energy in .... hydrogen based fuel cells ... 1960 technology.

Breakthrough research from Ballard some years ago made major efficiency improvements in fuel cells. Ballard's technology breakthrough literally took fuel cells half way to being practical in one major step. Therefore so many quickly became so excited over hydrogen. Honda purchased Ballard products for experimental research in some secluded field somewhere - with a special 'no-reverse engineering' clause in the sales agreement. We know that Toyota and Daimler (Mercedes) were also doing same many years ago. We also don't hear of anything coming from GM - a company run by MBAs.

So what is this government research project? I can make no sense of its real objectives. It sounds more like free money to Ford, GM and Chrysler to force them to do this research. Previously, such projects have stood accused of being siphoned off for other purposes at GM. Ford under Jacque Nasser probably was stifling engine research at Ford (as he also stifled 70 Hp per liter engines in new Ford models). This would have been just another point of contention between Nasser and William Clay Ford that resulted in arguements so violent that security was called on multiple occassions. Now government is paying Ford , GM, and Chrysler to perform the research they did without government money in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s?

Where are the American automakers such as Honda and Toyota? What kind of research money ignores the industry innovators?

Until details are provided, I really cannot judge this hydrogen project. But it sounds like corporate welfare since it does not address the real problem in automobiles - application of energy in an efficient manner. We don't have a problem with energy sources. We have a problem with consuming too much energy to perform too little (Bush does not like to hear that probably because his campaign bribers don't like that concept). We have a serious efficiency problem. Where hydrogen may be important, both Honda and Toyota are years ahead in the necessary technologies. So the government will throw money at domestic companies to perform research that MBAs did not appreciate years previously?

Throwing money, like a grenade, at a problem never solved problems. Those problems exist because top management feared innovation. Where hydrogen shows promise, Honda and Toyota have long since been doing the research. Where money is thrown to solve problems, well, did we not go through that nonsense with Reagan - Star Wars, Hypersonic airplane, Space Station Freedom - and how many other boondoogles from his State of the Union address?

When Kennedy decided to shot for the moon, first, he talked reality with those who 'come from where the work gets done'. Since Kennedy had intelligence, he could understand what was and was not possible. When Reagan wanted to emulate Kennedy, he consulted wackos such as Oliver North and Edward Teller. We now have a low intelligent president. Will he too just through money wildly at problems because he does not understand those 'who come from where the work gets done'?

(BTW, quantum mechanics is a significant part of understanding the problem. Hydrogen fuel cells involve separating and rerouting different parts of the hydrogen atom.)

Again, details of this hydrogen project appear to be muddled by politicians and reporters who don't understand the concepts. IOW we don't know what the hydrogen research will address. But we do know that it must be part of an upgrade from current technologies. Most promising technology to make hydrogen fuel part of the solution - hybrid automobiles that can therefore apply high 'energy per pound' fuels such as gasoline and diesel with greater efficiencies.

[jaguar]

Griff: Moral of the story - tw thinks ALOT
I haven't really looekd at fuel cells but to my knowledge they still needed power - and to that end if te power is being manufactured in a non-green way then the benifit is close to moot.

[Ardax]

Originally posted by tw


There was no Chevy Impala anywhere in mid 1990s. However you could get a 350 V8 in the Chevy Caprice that did 260 Hp or in the Chevy Suburban that did 200 Hp. World standard engine technology dicated that 260 Hp was provided by 3.8 V-6; 200 Hp would be a 3.0 liter V-6.

I've got to disagree with you here... Chevrolet DID bring back the Impala in 1994. It re-debuted with a 5.7 V-8. It was sold this way until 1996, then it disappeared again until 2000, when it was brought back again with a V-6.

1994 Chevy Impala SS

Other than that, that's one hell of a post.

Originally posted by tw
We now have a low intelligent president. Will he too just through money wildly at problems because he does not understand those 'who come from where the work gets done'?

*cough*

Yes, a low intelligen<b>ce</b> president, who might thro<b>w</b> money wildly...

If you're gonna call him dumb, please use the right words to do so. I don't mind total lefties, but when they point out the shortcomings of one person when they have their own (which might even be similar!), it steals the impact of their argument.

[tw]

Originally posted by Ardax
I've got to disagree with you here... Chevrolet DID bring back the Impala in 1994. It re-debuted with a 5.7 V-8. It was sold this way until 1996, then it disappeared again until 2000, when it was brought back again with a V-6.

The cited URL is only valid for the original access. Start a search from the Kelley Blue Book home page. Having done same, I discovered this in a review of the 2000-2001 Impala from:
http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.r...0&11&00impala3

With the exception of the 1994-96 Impala SS, a low-volume dress-up of the Caprice, ...

The Impala was only a renamed Caprice. BTW, one police force in Montgomery County had a running lottery on their Caprices - which one would drop its transmission next. They failed that often. A cop from an adjacent police department that used Fords said mockingly, "At least our door handles don't fall off."

Even the new Chevy Traiblazer, an SUV only with a V-6, provided more horsepower than that 95 Impala. My point is that in the 1990s, most of us stood brainwashed by things that were inferior. The mid 90 Caprices were a classic example of inferior America products that could not be exported. They cost too much to build AND failed too often.

BTW, it was just before that period that GM management complained that Japan would not buy American cars. Again, most of us let them brainwash us rather than first look at the numbers. During that period, Mercedes sales to Japan increased something like 20 to 30%, Ford 8%, VW I think was about 40%, and Opel was something like 72%. But GM sales decreased 2%. Why? Cars such as the Caprice were so poor that the only export were to people who HAD to buy them. People overseas just did not want GM crap.

I believe about that same time, Toyota sold a small 3.0 liter V-6 Supra that output 320 HP. That was more horsepower than even the Chevy Corvette. With a smaller engine and with less car wasted around a grossly oversized engine, that 1995 Toyota was clearly the superior car if engine performance and acceleration is your criteria.

Why am I suspicious, but unable to make firm conclusions, of that hydrogen research? There is a gross shortage of facts from the research and the rumors fly contrary to the current science. But then that was what Star Wars was all about. Again the common thread - what are the numbers and where are the facts?

Originally posted by tw
They failed that often. A cop from an adjacent police department that used Fords said mockingly, "At least our door handles don't fall off."

Seen the door handles fall off a Ford Taurus wagon once. It actually broke off as I tried to open the door. Nice!

My dad did the same thing on the car later that night. What a POS.