Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday April 16 2017, @01:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the solved-the-embrittlement-problem,-eh? dept.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars could one day challenge electric cars in the race for pollution-free roads—but only if more stations are built to fuel them.

Honda, Toyota and Hyundai have leased a few hundred fuel cell vehicles over the past three years, and expect to lease well over 1,000 this year. But for now, those leases are limited to California, which is home to most of the 34 public hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S.

Undaunted, automakers are investing heavily in the technology. General Motors recently supplied the U.S. Army with a fuel cell pickup, and GM and Honda are collaborating on a fuel cell system due out by 2020. Hyundai will introduce a longer-range fuel cell SUV next year.

"We've clearly left the science project stage and the technology is viable," said Charles Freese, who heads GM's fuel cell business.

Like pure electric cars, fuel cell cars run quietly and emission-free. But they have some big advantages. Fuel cell cars can be refueled as quickly as gasoline-powered cars. By contrast, it takes nine hours to fully recharge an all-electric Chevrolet Bolt using a 240-volt home charger. Fuel cells cars can also travel further between fill-ups.

Would you rather trade in your gas-guzzler for a hydrogen fuel cell car, or an electric car?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @01:47AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @01:47AM (#495057)

    Most hydrogen these days is created by cracking methane, which is why I have to ask why the hell you didn’t just use the methane as fuel in the first place. It’s a lot easier and safer to store and transport using well-known technology that the petroleum industry has been using for many decades, ordinary petrol-fuelled engines can be easily converted to use it. If you got your hydrogen by electrolysing water, then I have to ask where you got the electricity to do so. Unless your answer is a nuclear plant or some renewable power source, I have to question your judgement. And if you did get your electricity from nukes or renewables you might have done better to convert the hydrogen to methane instead for the same reasons above.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday April 17 2017, @08:44AM (1 child)

    by RedBear (1734) on Monday April 17 2017, @08:44AM (#495163)

    Most hydrogen these days is created by cracking methane, which is why I have to ask why the hell you didn’t just use the methane as fuel in the first place.

    The burning of methane creates carbon dioxide and water vapor. On the other hand, the use of a fuel cell to combine hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen creates only water vapor. Thus a hydrogen vehicle can technically be called "zero emission". There are vehicles all around the world that run on some variation of natural gas like methane. Unfortunately that kind of direct burning of fossil fuels doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuels releasing excess carbon into the atmosphere. Where the carbon goes during the "cracking" of natural gas to produce hydrogen, I don't know. Theoretically hydrogen produced from water via electrolysis would be free of this problem, but we still don't have the technology to do that efficiently on a massive scale, and it would be a waste of energy that could have gone directly into batteries or some other energy storage medium more efficient than hydrogen.

    This is why I am a proponent of battery-electric vehicles. Let us not forget that the typical hydrogen fuel cell vehicle also contains several kilowatt-hours of EV batteries in order to provide adequate energy output for fast acceleration while the flow of gas through the fuel cell slowly "ramps up", and to provide a place to store energy recovered through regenerative braking. HFCVs are therefore "electric vehicles" with inadequate batteries. Hydrogen simply makes no sense for small vehicles now that battery prices make EVs nearly cost-competitive with ICE vehicles even without subsidies.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 17 2017, @12:59PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 17 2017, @12:59PM (#495226)

      Where the carbon goes during the "cracking" of natural gas to produce hydrogen, I don't know.

      The air of course. And the energy cost of the conversion is not free and the storage cost of H2 is enormously higher (its a tiny leaky molecule).

      Hydrogen is the ultimate greenwashing energy "source".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @09:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @09:11AM (#495177)

    Nah can't use methane because high pressure tanks that are magically no problem and mythbusted for hydrogen are quite troublesome beasts in the real world. Also you won't get funding for funky adsorption or absorption materials like for hydrogen to make it work in lower pressure because grantgivers only give money to sexy projects and carbon is only sexy when it's single layer in hexagonal pattern, not simple hydrocarbon.