Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: john9001 on February 02, 2003, 07:42:10 PM
-
City of LA Takes Delivery of First Fuel Cell Car
Honda FCX only fuel cell car certified for commercial use
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 2, 2002 -- The City of Los Angeles today took delivery of the nation's first certified fuel cell car, the Honda FCX. The Honda FCX being leased by the City will be used in normal, everyday use and was delivered in a ceremony today at City Hall including Mayor Jim Hahn and Hiroyuki Yoshino, President and Chief Executive Officer of Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
The hydrogen-powered Honda FCX is the only fuel cell vehicle certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. EPA for every day commercial use. Under the two-year lease agreement, the City of LA will pay $500 a month to lease the first of five Honda FCX models with the other four vehicles being delivered in 2003. In addition, Honda has contracted with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., based in Allentown, PA with local operations in El Segundo, to provide the hydrogen fuel and refueling infrastructure.
"This is a very exciting day for the City of Los Angeles as it takes a major, national leadership role in putting hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles into practical, everyday use," Mayor Hahn said. "Los Angeles City employees will use these fuel cell vehicles on a day-to-day basis, just like any other pool vehicle."
"Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles hold great promise for future clean air vehicles and it is important that LA play a leading role in assisting in the development and early use of this technology. Working with Honda Motor company, which has a long history of firsts in developing environmentally sound vehicles, adds to the great prospect for continued air quality improvements for the citizens of Los Angeles."
Honda plans to lease about 30 fuel cell cars in California and Japan during the next two to three years. The company currently has no plans, however, for mass-market sales of fuel cell vehicles or sales to individuals.
"The future of the fuel cell vehicle shows great promise in reducing the global dependence on oil, and our association with the great City of Los Angeles is an important step in the pursuit of this goal," said Yoshino.
Both CARB and the EPA have certified the Honda FCX as a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV). The FCX uses hydrogen supplied to a fuel cell "stack" to generate electricity that powers its electric motor.
With an output of up to 80 horsepower and 201 foot-pounds of torque, acceleration is similar to a Honda Civic. Water vapor is the only exhaust. The FCX has an EPA certified range of 170 miles and seating for four people, making it practical for a wide range of real-world applications.
Honda undertook fuel cell research in 1989 and has been road testing vehicles in the United States since 1999. Honda has also been a member of the California Fuel Cell Partnership based in Sacramento, Calif., since 1999.
-
Dumb question, but how would a hydrogen fuel cell car handle any climate that get to or below freezing for any length of time?
All for the emissions stuff, but in Minnesota, assuming some sort of heater to keep the water exhaust flowing in winter, the exhaust would be a hazard to the other drivers -- wouldn't be black ice anymore, just plain old ice.
-
170 range....... How much does it cost to refuel?
-
the cost isn't really prob now.. its that Hydrogen stations are few and far between now.. they need to make many many more in order to make fuel cell cars more practical. Its about stinking time we got rid of 150 year old tech.
-
A dumb question... how is hidrogen produced? Is it extracted from water via electrolysy (sp?)? Doesn't this process consume large quantities of energy? Or is it available in large quantities with a simpler, less energy consuming process?
-
check this out DA98
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm
-
500 bucks a month to lease a Honda?
Promising technology, but it needs to be perfected (read: made economical). Perhaps it'll be viable in another 10 years. Anything that would reduce/eliminate our dependence on foreign oil is IMO money well spent.
J_A_B
-
It is far more efficient and less resource consuming to have one large fossil fuel burning power station than hundreds of thousands of individual fossil fuel engines running about the place.
-
I've wondered for a while (since 8th grade science actually) why we couldn't just have regular intenal combustion cars that burned hydrogen. if you injected it 2:1 with oxygen your emision would be water, right?
is this do-able or am I over-simplifying the process?
-
So you're going to have liquified oxygen and hydrogen fuel tanks on a regular car (any other way would take up too much volume)? Let me know before you drive through my neighbourhood - I'll be several hundred miles away waiting for the explosion.
I doubt you could harness the combustion of hydrogen, especially in the presence of oxygen in any non-Hiroshima type of way. ;)
-
A FLYING MACHINE? NO, THAT WILL NEVER WORK YOU SILLY FOOLS!!
Dowding, why would a hydrogen engine be any more dangerous than an engine that explodes gasoline?
-
Because of the conception of the engine
You can try to burn TNT if you want ... but the engine must have been build for that or warn me when you drive by ;)
-
lol this isn't anything like flying. Let's take a look at what you'd need to build a hydrogen combustion vehicle.
First you need enough oxygen to burn the large volume of hydrogen needed to get enough power - atmospheric concentrations are far too low. So we need to concentrate it. Gaseous oxygen would be no good - since to use gaseous oxygen, one would require an airship on a line from your car for the volume required to store enough of it to get you from A to B.
The oxygen would have to be liqufied.
Let's assume you could liquefy it cheap enough for widespread use (which would be very difficult given the process involved). Liquid oxygen is far, far, far more dangerous and expensive than gasoline. Remember, for anything to burn it needs oxygen. That is why when you have high concentrations of it, things tend to explode and/or burst into flame. So you would need a fool proof method of storage and delivery from your everyday petrol station to the vehicle.
The slightest defect in the equipment would have catastrophic results. I would imagine that parking lots would become very risky places to be. Parking lot attendents would have to form a good union and get lots of danger money. Same goes for the fuel filler people at fuel stations - there would probably have to be a benevolent fund set-up and a national memorial.
As for liquid hydrogen, I'm not sure if it's even be attempted outside of a very hitech lab. You'd probably have to use laser cooling or some such technology.
Also remember that burning hydrogen and oxygen together in an internal combustion type of arrangement is NOT how a hydrogen fuel cell works - it works on chemical reaction rather than combustion to release energy.
So, in summary, I'd rather have a hydrogen fuel cell powered car than a hydrogen combustion car. :)
-
Many good points in here.
Dowding: "It is far more efficient and less resource consuming to have one large fossil fuel burning power station than hundreds of thousands of individual fossil fuel engines running about the place." :):):):), Correct!
A hydrogen powered car, even with the Hydrogen manufactured from fuel like diesel delivers more percentage of the original energy.
Secondly, the pollution is almost non existant.
I am not so sure about the combustion part. I think the first Hydro-cars used some sort of combustion, but I was unable to find out exactly how. There already are aero engines running on Hydrogen, and I'm pretty sure that they're not using the cell technoligy. Maybe they compress air and then pump hydrogen in and ignite in a turbinbe-like engine, I don't know. Anyway, it is estimated that an airliner with a given power output can be up to 30% LIGHTER if powered by Hydrogen than conventional fuel.
The tanks are a problem, they have to be thick and strong which means heavier. But the fuel is powerful.
In my country we are about to start running Hydro-buses in the capital, - supposed to start this year :)
-
sounds like an ok way to heat and cool and power my house so long as the natural gas holds out.
lazs
-
Im a sucker for these things. If they bring that tech to florida ill buy one. Even if it turns out to be the new-age version of the pinto.
-
rgr capt Apathy..ive seen the demo on tv..they put a glass under the exhaust pipe of the cell car..and the exhaust is air and pure water..the tech dude lets some drip into the glass and takes a swig..
-
Dowding: It is far more efficient and less resource consuming to have one large fossil fuel burning power station than hundreds of thousands of individual fossil fuel engines running about the place.
Not far more. Few percent more.
capt. apathy: why we couldn't just have regular intenal combustion cars that burned hydrogen. if you injected it 2:1 with oxygen your emision would be water, right?
Hydrogen burns in air just fine. If you inject 2:1 oxygen, you will not get a burn but a true explosion.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Hydrogen burns in air just fine.
miko
Surely does.
-
Now - Im a little green on this (got a C in Chemistry in college) but I read this as a hydrogen powered - electric driven car. Is there any way to create a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine?
-
That's not correct Miko2d. A modern gas fired power station linked to a modern network is much more efficient than the petrol car, even accounting for electricity transmission losses. For the same amount of fuel, the energy released by the power station allows electric cars to go much further than conventional cars using the same amount of fuel.
-
You do not need to create one. Certainly not new technology. A minor modification to existing technology it is sufficient. You can even convert a gasoline engine to burn hydrogen or nat. gas - though a specifically designed model would be a bit more efficient.
There are plenty of natural-gas busses in operation right now. There is very little difference in burning natural gas and hydrogen.
miko
-
They use LPG - liquefied petroleum gas, do they not? How would you liquefy hydrogen and then store it in an affordable, safe way that could be transported?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
There is very little difference in burning natural gas and hydrogen.
Except that hydrogen's only emission is water, while natural gas produces carbon dioxide.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that hydrogen's only emission is water, while natural gas produces carbon dioxide.
Right, but the same equipment can be used to burn both with monimal adjustments.
Besides, hydrgen on the modern "fuel-cell" cars is produced onboard from natural gas or methanol stored in tanks through a cathalytic "fuel processor" also known as ""reformer" or "steam reformer". So the products are almost exactly the same - at least concerning CO2. There are possibly fewer NO compounds released that in ICM engine.
For methanol:
CH3OH => CO + 2H2
H2O + CO => CO2[/i] + H2
For natural gas:
CH4 + H2O => CO + 3H2
H2O + CO => CO2[/i] + H2
Since water is needed as input, the car will need to carry in addition to the fuel. Hopefully it can use some that is emitted as exhaust.
Even legally such vehicles are not qualified as zero-emission.
miko
-
The "HOW EXPENSIVE" question is the main thing...it drives it all.
However, and as usual, it's never run on a thought of long-scale. While something like masses of hydro fuelled cars with lots of hydro-tanks to fill them up on every gas station might be more expensive right now, we must not omit the inevitable...Oil will run out!
It's not a question about if, just WHEN.
Anyway, - Miko2d:
"You do not need to create one. Certainly not new technology. A minor modification to existing technology it is sufficient. You can even convert a gasoline engine to burn hydrogen or nat. gas - though a specifically designed model would be a bit more efficient.
There are plenty of natural-gas busses in operation right now. There is very little difference in burning natural gas and hydrogen.
miko"
Nice. Pretty much what I (though I) remembered, which was that the first hydro cars were poweed by converted combustion engines.
Anyway, those presented technical problems, just can't remember which ones exactly. Hmmm..Anyone?
Now, your part about Natural Gas could nevertheless do with a bit more explanaton. So please :):):)
-
i thinbk fuel cells are way far term. imo real emphasis should be placed on hybrids. i think if all cars in the cities in stoip and go traffic were hybrids that would save alot fo pollution, and hybrids are already well developed, unlike fuel cells. i bet if every car was forced to be a hybrid pollution would drop 50% in major cities. On teh highway hybrid does little, but in city traffic it makes an enormous difference.