This is SJC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following SJC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
By the way, the quote from the article on "...quickest start up time (less than 1 sec)..." That is just plain wrong, they were mistaken and mislead the readers. If they were talking about a 100 watt stack it still would take longer than a second. I believe they call it critical thinking, try it some time.
It is not a challenge if you have enough batteries on board. With an engine, in a few seconds it is running, you warm it a bit and drive off slowly. You do the same with an FCV, but you need batteries to provide the heat to warm the stack before it operates. Not much different. Thinking it is just like an engine is a mistake however.
When you look at the middle east getting by with $20 oil in 2000, but needing oil above $80 per barrel by 2010 you have to wonder. They are making much more money, but they are spending much more as well.
"In 2009 Toyota achieved at start up time of 30 seconds at -20°C, which they claimed was “the best cold start capability of any FCV in the world” Page 28 second paragraph of the PDF link I posted. The article is on HTPEMs comparing to PEM, so it is relevant. So they are saying an HTPEM would take one minute and the PEM takes 30 seconds. This longer than "a few seconds".
"..brushed off a foot of snow before starting the car right up. No problem." That means he drove away on batteries while the fuel cell heated up. I made a mistake on the companies, I admit that. People make mistakes, but they should not believe something that just is not true. Believing that a large 100 kW fuel cell starts up like an engine is not true.
"..brushed off a foot of snow before starting the car right up. No problem." That means he drove away on batteries while the fuel cell heated up. I made a mistake on the companies, I admit that. People make mistakes, but they should not believe something that just is not true. Believing that a large 100 kW fuel cell starts up like an engine is not true.
"This supports the DOE/FreedomCAR target of rapid startup of a fuel cell vehicle to 90% rated power soaked at –20°C in less than 30 seconds in 2010 with less than 5 mega Joules of energy." Mind you that is a TARGET which still takes more than 1 kWh of energy heating a fuel cell for 30 seconds. It DOES take more than a 'few seconds'. Consider 1 kWh is 3400 BTU and we need 10,000 BTU, it will take more energy and time than a few seconds. By the way, if PowerCell thinks that they can build thousands of PEM fuel cells that can withstand more than 1000 ppm of CO for more than 10 years, best of luck to them. When they say "rapid" startup time on their data sheets, they mean faster than an SOFC, which could take hours.
Raising 100 pounds 100 degrees takes 10,000 BTU, how are you going to heat the stack 10,000 BTU in a few seconds? An internal combustion engine has lots of waste heat in every cylinder on every power stoke of each second. A PEM has electric heaters, that takes a while.
I don't know what "links" you are talking about, that PDF you referenced says nothing of the sort. That S1 data sheet does say "*Start/stop in freeze condition needs special process..." Dave, just think about heating 200 pounds of stack from 0 degrees C to 60 degree C, how much heat energy that takes and how long it will take to do that. Now do you really think you can just cold start a large stack in seconds? The reaction will NOT take place until the stack is at 60C MINIMUM, the stack can not heat it self. If you want a definitive report on the state of the art read: They say the best time from a cold start for a larger PEM was ONE MINUTE done by Toyota in a laboratory. So you keep thinking seconds when the reality is MINUTES.
I got my companies mixed up, the HT PEM company is Serenergy in Denmark, this is PowerCell in Sweden. PowerCell claims to have a CO tolerant PEM, but most PEM fuel cells can not even tolerate 10 ppm, they need to take 1000 ppm to take reformed liquid hydrocarbon fuels, HT PEMs can do that. Then there is sulfur, which is not a problem if you are reforming methanol, but that is another story :)
That data sheet is for a small 5 kW LT PEM, this project is based on a larger 25 kW S2 fuel cell. This company has been working on HT PEM for a while, but the S2 is described as a "CO tollerant PEM" The stack still has to be warmed to 70C minimum before starting, so it will take a while, maybe 3-4 minutes. An HTPEM starts at about 120C which takes a bit longer.
During the BP blowout in the Gulf, the "small hat/big hat" kluges they tried kept getting clogged up with methane hydrates. So I would say they have plenty, but they are deep and costly to recover. They need to see if they can mine them without a run away uncontrolled cascade emission.
A VW exec was interviewed, he believes that there will be 300 mile EVs by 2020, they need a 2x improvement in density and cost for that to happen, IMO. Pouch cells probably cost less to manufacture, one person said they have 20 AH, 40 AH, they are working on a 60 AH. You can pack and stack pouch cells, look at the LEAF pack to see an example.
PowerCell has a 25 kW HTPEM, there is no reason they could not make a larger one. The reformer does not have to be much larger nor cost much more. If it takes 10 minutes to start up the reformer and warm the HTPEM, you have 12 kWH of batteries that can last for 30+ minutes on battery only. The costly parts are batteries and fuel cells, so use less of both.
Ballard made the GE idea of a fuel cell TEN times better 20 years ago, they were way ahead of their time. They almost did not make it because our market system rewards Twitter with a $20 billion IPO market cap while starving useful contributions like Ballard.
The PowerCell/Volvo C30 FCEV is the right idea, more batteries and less fuel cell in a range extender configuration. The HTPEM can run on reformed liquid fuel without CO problems.
I said 4 or 5 plants would be better for risk reduction. They could have put one plant in each of the competing states. We will see how this "gigafactory" works out, it could be Musk's Waterloo.
Dr. Andrew Frank formerly at U.C. Davis developed hybrid cars in the early 1980s. They became the PNGV cars and then the Prius. Dr. Frank had almost NO budget, but he had many talented and devoted students.
In a market based system, only the most profitable activity is worth doing, the externalities of health and environment are ignored, those are someone else's problems.
Yes, some say it is just a "niche" so ignore it, to them it is of no value. Add up all those niches and you have part of a real solution.
You can use energy dense without power dense by using two kinds of batteries. These would be the "range extender" variety, the conventional lithium ion batteries would be for power.
This shows what can be done when an EV is light and streamlined. If motors were cheap enough, you could put two at the back end and eliminate the differential weight and cost. Now that you don't need 85 kWh of batteries, the weight goes down farther and you don't need a heavier structure. Car design tends to scale like that, a bigger engine needs a bigger transmission which requires a heavier frame and bigger stronger suspension. Take that in reverse, you don't need a 3000 pound car for a 150 pound person.
I do not see where they are getting the $4500 number. There was a study done at U.C. Berkeley that showed car pool lanes cause congestion in the SFO Bay Area. The lanes were under used causing more congestion. If that is the case, the HOV lanes get more use with hybrids, which reduces overall congestion. The cars are going to be there no matter what, people need to get to work. Car pools are seldom used, that was the original idea for the HOV car pool lanes to begin with.
Growers are realizing payments in the $70 per ton range for biomass, before harvest costs. Plus, improvements in soil productivity and consequent savings in fertilizer costs. That market is bringing biomass off the field, and ultimately encourages no-till farming...
2015 Ford Focus Electric will get a major price cut of $6,000, bringing the suggested retail price to $29,995--more in line with the best-selling Nissan Leaf.