Hydrogen Fuel Cells
 

"The Bush administration is walking away from a $1.5 billion eight- year government-subsidized project to develop high-mileage gasoline- fueled vehicles. Instead it is throwing its support behind a plan that the Energy Department and the auto industry have devised to develop hydrogen-based fuel cells to power the cars of the future, administration and industry officials said yesterday. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/bu...odaysheadlines


Its obvious that our reliance on foreign oil is a problem, however is this realistic or just avoidance behavior.

Bush may not care about the environment but he's not stupid. He probably realizes that if we don't lessen our dependence on oil then we're probably going to be bombed one day.

We are on the way already. In 1990 fuel costs were 8% of the GNP, now they're 3%. I don't have any source or context for this statement as I heard it in passing. Also Russian and Mexican sources are gearing up which will lessen the importance of the Mideast.

The truth is that such innovations don't come from government "investments" anyway -- as the article points out, the only two automakers with hybrid vehicles on the market are Honda and Toyota, who didn't have anything to do with earlier "initiatives". The market, as always, is driven by demand and any political changes only confuse the matter. After the last serious oil crunch there were scores of bills in the legislature concerning synthetic fuels and alternative energy, and 20 years later we are still driving internal combusion engines fueled with petroleum.

The truth is that a lot of these technologies are just barely out of reach. If gas prices were to double and stay there, you'd see hybrids and fuel cells and hydrogen and natural gas and all sorts of of other things in short order.

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

That Sharon is a "dic head", of course! :)

As far as oil prices, I think one of the best things that could possibly happen would be gas prices going up to like $5/gallon - you'd see a lot of people dumping their gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient models, and in turn, more fuel-efficient models would be produced. That's a <b>good</b> thing.

Um, if you don't ignore the side effects. Like everything which depends on fuel (which is just about everything) increasing in cost. You want to cause instant recession, that'll do it.

Further, I could use a big gas guzzling monster about now. You know how much Ikea charges to deliver two $75 bookshelves? $110! Gack. How am I supposed to furnish my place if I can't get any furniture?

Well, for eating up more gas than the rest of us, therefore causing prices to rise further... that's the price you pay.

Recession is bad and all, but what happens when we run out of fuel? It WILL happen, and we BETTER have something to carry us. Talk about the instant recession when that hits - no more power. What then?

If the prices went up, at least we'd be forced to innovate other solutions.

The fact that Chevrolet got rid of the Metro (and Suzuki dumped its sister car, the Swift) saddens me. :( Now what the hell am I supposed to buy? A Kia? Oh hell no!

What'll happen: the synfuels and natural gas and fuel cells and batteries and fuel-efficient cars and bike/Segway lanes and ALL other such alternatives will NATURALLY eke into the market. Because gas prices will rise due to limited supply, making the alternatives slowly viable.

By the time petroleum is truly in short supply, the alternatives will then be in place. The futures market will ensure that the price increase of petroleum due to short supply is flattened, so that the economy doesn't have to absorb the effect all at once.

Which is, after all, the whole problem: everyone wants to engineer solutions, which they want to implement all at once, massively screwing up the whole market activity which tends to naturally, invisibly solve these kinds of problems by itself.

If this is the same Geo Metro I'm thinking of, I'm certainly not shedding any tears over it. Have you ever driven one of those? That was one seriously underpowered car (given it only had 3 cylinders, but still...).

Don't make me have to come find you! ;)

I love my 1995 Geo Metro. The gas mileage numbers aren't as great as they probably were when it was new (the car is 7 years old and has 116,000 miles on it), but it's lean on fuel. We have the LSi, which is a 4-cylinder, and gives about 80 or so hp. (I believe the 3-cylinders were 60 or 65 hp.) My only real complaint is that it is indeed small, but it works wonders for parking in Center City Philadelphia. :)

Well, after I get my CS degree, i'm definitely gonna look into getting one of those cool hybrid cars. Hell, if i'm gonna spend that much money, I might as well vote with my dollars.

/me removes foot from mouth. :)

How is the 4-cyl version, as I only had the joy *cough* of driving 3-cyl models? Those ones could barely make it up the hills around town. I'm talking "pedal on the floor, 35 mph and dropping" kind of "barely make it up hills." This was a brand new car, being delivered to a customer too.

Ah back in the days of working at a dealership.

Now the '95 Chevy Impalas were cars with some serious balls. Black, v-8, and every amenity you could imagine except for a hot sex slave in the passenger seat. :) It jumped against the brakes when you put it in gear. You'd be moving at 10 mph in the time it took you to get your foot from the brake to the gas. I liked that car. For some reason they wouldn't let me take the Corvette out. I mean, I was 18! I was an adult! :)

Yeah. Back to reality, and the topic at hand now.

I'd much rather move to the southwest and get a motorcycle than get one of those hybrid cars. Not that I have anything against them, I just want a bike to drive all year 'round.

Much as I'd love to have that kind of fuel economy, I find myself needing lots of cargo space far too often for such a small car to be viable. That and I'm 6'2" -- those cars don't look comfortable to me. :) (I could be wrong on that though, I'll reserve final judgement until I can sit in one.)

*laughs* It's all good.

The Joys of Driving a Geo Metro by Sycamore

For the most part, the Geo Metro is a solid vehicle. Acceleration is weak, as should be expected--zero to 60 in about 15 seconds or so. No problems on inclines though. The 3-speed automatic transmission gives fair acceleration and steady throttle. Fuel economy varies, depending on driving conditions--as low as 24mpg in the city and as high as 35mpg on the highway. I will test this again shortly, as it just received a tune-up.

The end. :)

Those WERE great cars. I don't like the new ones...in fact, I'm pissed that they dropped the Caprices...how can you go wrong with a rear-wheel drive, 350 short block V-8, full size luxury sedan? I had an '88 Caprice for 2 years. Man, I loved that car so much. Driving in snow sucked, but everything has a limitation. :) Said car can be found here.

Incidentally, my best friend from high school and his family drove a Chevette from 1980 to 1993 or so. Unusual? When your entire family is over 6'2" (and my friend is 6'10"), it is. And they didn't have a problem with height, space, etc. :)

During my last week at my job, we had a company luncheon. They asked me if I could take a couple of people. I was leery, given that I own a Geo Metro (and it was a mess at the time). Somehow, I fit myself (5'8", about 275 lbs.), a woman over 300 lbs., and a man 6'5" tall--and he was in the back. How we did it, I will never know. :)

Syc, Shouldn't your Metro be doing better than that, mileage wise? I had a '86 VW Jetta years ago that was over 40mpg on the highway. If parts for the darn thing were not so expensive, I'd still be running it. You know those gigantic Cummins Diesel Dodge pickups? My buddies getting 23mpg highway with his. He went synthetic with all his fluids (um vehicle lubricants not bodily) but I don't think he's done anything else, although he's a capable mechanic. On the other hand, my little Nissan 4x4 is lucky to crack 20mpg in rural conditions.

I remember seeing a little Ford 8N (smallish 1950s farm tractor) in Mother Earth News years ago that had some kind of wood gasifier for fuel, then theres the whole bio-diesel thing most people don't know that the diesel engine was originally developed with farmers in mind so they could grow their own fuel source. There are a lot of options out there but you've got to put up with inconvieniece and expense. Its too bad the mass consumer market is so monolithic but that can change.

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.

Answering multiple posts....
 

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.

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.

Re: Answering multiple posts....
 

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. :)

Re: Answering multiple posts....
 

*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.

Re: Re: Answering multiple posts....
 

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
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?

Re: Re: Re: Answering multiple posts....
 

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.