# Millennium Cell Goes Under



## 59921 (Aug 8, 2008)

back around 00 I met Dr Z at the benz plant in alabama.
I was able to talk to him for 25 min. Never understood why they did not bring the smart car in sooner.

Anyway BLDP was there with a display of their fuel cell tech. Ballards
display was so poor it would have gotten a D at a high school science fair.
Right then I lost all faith/hope in the FC biz.




Also had a chance to talk to a BMW guy 3-4 months later. He laughed
at the fuel cells. He said BMW already builds some of the finest motors
in the world, we will just convert them to run on hydrogen.


----------



## 59921 (Aug 8, 2008)

Just saw a pic of Honda's new fuel cell car.
Guess who makes its fuel cell.

Honda.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

As a canadian I must say I am embarrassed by ballard power. The company is a disgrace and has done nothing to make their product better or more affordable. In recent years they have officially abandoned the idea of deploying their fuel cells into passenger cars because they cannot (or will not) drive their costs down.

If it wasn't for government handouts from tax payers like myself, that company would have gone under a long time ago. Its days are numbered, but political and environmental pressure keeps it alive to this day.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Running a piston engine on hydrogen will probably never be viable. Most hydrogen is made from natural gas these days. That's not a clean or sustainable way to make hydrogen. The only clean way to make hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and that is only about 40% efficient. That's horrible efficiency. Running that through a 25% efficient (at best) piston engine gives you a grid to flywheel efficiency of 10%. Ouch! Now, take into account that a piston engine needs a multi-speed transmission which drives the total efficiency of the drive train to about 85% and you get a car that is about 8.5% efficient. 

The best way to convert hydrogen's chemical potential energy back to kinetic energy is through a fuel cell. So, take electrolysis' 40% efficiency combined with a fuel cell's 60% efficiency (Honda claims that its fuel cell is %60 efficient) and you get 24% efficiency. Also, that energy is potential electric energy that will be run through an electric drive train at about 80% efficiency, so you get 19.2% efficient. That is near the overall efficiency of a gasoline-burning automobile.

Of course, electric cars blow all of these technologies out of the water with an overall efficiency of about 75% or more. 

This is why fuel cells are not viable and this is why companies like Ballard are doomed to failure. It doesn't matter what a fuel cell does to drive down its prices or to improve its technology. BEVs are efficient enough that they are viable. Hydrogen cars are so inefficient that they will probably never be viable.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

xrotaryguy said:


> Running a piston engine on hydrogen will probably never be viable. Most hydrogen is made from natural gas these days. That's not a clean or sustainable way to make hydrogen. The only clean way to make hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and that is only about 40% efficient. That's horrible efficiency. Running that through a 25% efficient (at best) piston engine gives you a grid to flywheel efficiency of 10%. Ouch! Now, take into account that a piston engine needs a multi-speed transmission which drives the total efficiency of the drive train to about 85% and you get a car that is about 8.5% efficient.
> 
> The best way to convert hydrogen's chemical potential energy back to kinetic energy is through a fuel cell. So, take electrolysis' 40% efficiency combined with a fuel cell's 60% efficiency (Honda claims that its fuel cell is %60 efficient) and you get 24% efficiency. Also, that energy is potential electric energy that will be run through an electric drive train at about 80% efficiency, so you get 19.2% efficient. That is near the overall efficiency of a gasoline-burning automobile.
> 
> ...


You are right on all counts. But what about the potential for terrorism? Now all some nut job has to do is steal an H powered car and hack the fuel system to take out a city block. Imagine a whole undergrond parking garage full of these cars going off? SHKAFLOOOOOGA!!!!!!

All thats really needed to kill off the idea of the H fuel cell is video tape an H powered car getting blown up mythbusters style, then put the video on Utube. Remember the hindenburg? The airship era was over by the time that thing was finally put out (and I like airships!)


----------



## akumabito (Jun 23, 2008)

You mean just like with the LiOn battery explosion scare?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

akumabito said:


> You mean just like with the LiOn battery explosion scare?


The ones with cobalt can and do explode, but not like hydrogen. Lithium iron phosphate will not explode, but will sort of smolder.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

xrotaryguy said:


> Running a piston engine on hydrogen will probably never be viable. Most hydrogen is made from natural gas these days. That's not a clean or sustainable way to make hydrogen. The only clean way to make hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and that is only about 40% efficient. That's horrible efficiency.



try 90%... many companies in europe use catalysts that can bump it up as high as mid 90s

Look it up... straight DC through water is NOT how it's done commerically.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> All thats really needed to kill off the idea of the H fuel cell is video tape an H powered car getting blown up mythbusters style, then put the video on Utube. Remember the hindenburg? The airship era was over by the time that thing was finally put out (and I like airships!)


lmfao... you've never seen a pressurized hydrogen explosion I see.

the cloud doesn't go sideways only up.... the hindenburg was non-pressurized.

There's much more risk from the pressure than the explosion.... of course the last I saw they were using 3 inch thick alum tanks (really try to explode something like that... REALLY explode it not just poke a steamy hole in it. Hydrogen can not burn outside of air... it's not going to just KABOOM around.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> try 90%... many companies in europe use catalysts that can bump it up as high as mid 90s
> 
> Look it up... straight DC through water is NOT how it's done commerically.


Please tell me more. I am experimenting with hydrogen for the purpose of injecting small amounts into the intake of a diesel engine and the folks on another forum would be interested in knowing if there is a better way to decompose water.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Technologic said:


> try 90%... many companies in europe use catalysts that can bump it up as high as mid 90s
> 
> Look it up... straight DC through water is NOT how it's done commerically.


I think you're looking at theoretical efficiency. 



> Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included.


link

I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reputable source, but 40% is a fairly middle-of-the-road estimate for electrolysis efficiency considering all the bunk information surrounding hydrogen in general. 

PS: If you wouldn't mind including a link to go with your claims, that would be greatly appreciated.


----------

