Nissan tests the hydrogen-powered FCV in extreme weather
Those of you living in cold places might be concerned, with reason, about the performance of certain vehicles in winter. Nissan announced that the X-Trail FCV is currently being tested in facilities near Hokkaido, Japan. Tests started last year and now it was time for tests in cold weather. The current model uses an all-new fuel cell, which is claimed to produce 40 percent more power than the previous unit, 130 kW against 90 kW, while being 25 percent smaller. The cell also reduces the amount of platinum it needs by half. Nissan is currently showing the technology at FC Expo 2009 in Tokyo, one of the world's largest fuel-cell exhibitions, this weekend.Gallery: Nissan X-Trail FCV
[Source: Nissan]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
giyad 10:14AM (2/27/2009)
"The cell also reduces the amount of platinum it needs by half."
So what does that mean, it costs $250k to build now? Progress! haha
Reply
Carney 10:59AM (2/27/2009)
The Hydrogen Hoax:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Reply
Randy 11:41AM (2/27/2009)
Thanks for the link Carney, I had not read that article before.
I believe all of what Mr. Zubrin is saying to be true, even the last few points on alcohol based fuels for which I'm not a big advocate, but after reading all the facts and problems with hydrogen, it makes alcohol fuels seem very viable.
Pure electric is still the Holy Grail and my religion.
paulwesterberg 1:03PM (2/27/2009)
Plug in electric has no basis in religion, it is the right choice because it is the only technology scientifically proven to offer significant improvements in efficiency and emissions.
Noz 2:08PM (2/27/2009)
LOL....that's the only link Carney knows.
Carney 2:32PM (2/27/2009)
Randy, I think pure electric may well be the long term solution, but range, power, and cost are big issues that will need years more of expensive R&D to overcome.
Also, while I'm aware that there's slack capacity in the grid especially at night I think that it's creaky and at near capacity in many states especially CA. If we dump the huge burden of our surface transportation fleet onto the electric grid, I doubt it can handle the load. So from the power source end of things, we'll have to add a lot more capacity. Given high costs for non dirty sources, and greens' success in preventing construction of new coal, petroleum, or nuclear fission plants, I suspect we'll have to wait until nuclear fusion becomes a reality. In my view we need to spend a lot more on that and a lot less on handouts for votes.
In my view the short and mid term solution is alcohol.
gorr 11:06AM (2/27/2009)
They never tested pure battery car in the cold or in the hot because they know it don't work contrary to fuel cell that work in all conditions. But these stupids are following mandated platinum use by the treat of goverments if some minor problem occur with electrodes, they even mandated gasoline/diesel and platinum use for ordinary limp car since 1908 for gas and 1973 for platinum. If nissan will be clever and honest and independant from the mob which is not we will have next week regular cars with water electrolysers with 50% more power and less cost, a dozen pure battery car for some chatters here and fuelcell for the early buyers.
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:06PM (2/27/2009)
Fuel cell efficiency is unimpressive during normal conditions, during extreme conditions the efficiency will be very poor until waste heat or a heating element is used to increase the cell temperature.
gorr 4:31PM (2/27/2009)
I said yesterday to not confuse religion and business.
Chris M 5:44PM (3/03/2009)
Fuel cells are more sensitive to high and low temperatures than batteries, they won't work if they are below freezing but some LiIon batteries will still function down to -30 F. For that reason, fuel cell cars use batteries to power the car until the fuel cells can be warmed up enough to start working.
Sorry, Gorr, but you appear to be confused about everything.
GoodCheer 11:39AM (2/27/2009)
I have to say "Well done Nissan". They are working on making fuel cells more useful in a broader range of geographic regions, heretofore a significant barrier to adoption. I'm even willing to admit that fuel cells will drop in price, maybe by more than an order of magnitude, if they were to be manufactured by the hundreds of thousands.
However, getting from H2 to electricity is really the least of the problems with the technology. Fuel cells are actually remarkably good at doing that conversion... achieving efficiencies as high as combined-cycle turbine-based generation facilities that can take advantage of economies of physical scale (as opposed to numerical scale) that are unavailable in a car.
The problem with hydrogen is on the generation end. How I wish that gorr's "water electrolyzer" could work, because on-board hydrogen generation at over-unity would solve all our energy problems. Unfortunately in this universe the laws of physics don't permit that, and the generation of hydrogen is either energy intensive (electrolysis), resource intensive (steam reformation of CH4), or both.
And then once you have it, you can't easily store it, and you can't easily transport it.
Reply
Noz 2:15PM (2/27/2009)
Indeed...there's alot of work to be done. Already, however, is a development in hydrogen storage and transport that may be a big game changer.
There's research being done to develop hydrogen filled pellets that can be transported around in a bag or small hand held gasoline tank if need be. They can also be filled into fueling stations and pumped into fuel tanks and release the fuel on demand.
It's funny...even though the current technology is costly....a 50% reduction in material use doesn't seem to register in the minds of the naysayers.
The problem is the time line viewed. People like Carney can't accept the fact that progress happens. Material advancements occur. Innovations create new technologies. The computer he's sitting behind parroting his ludicrously misguided website cost $10K or more a mere 30 years ago. Now he can pick one up for less than a 10th of price, a 4th of the weight, and 5 times smaller.
Myopia doesn't work for advancements in science and technology. It's a very dangerous trait.
jake 2:15PM (2/27/2009)
Traditionally we compare the generation end of the HFCV to the generation end of the BEV and the vehicle side to the vehicle side. Generation end, HFCVs lose with electrolysis and is better with steam reformation(75%) vs combined cycle (60%) . HFCVs always lose on the vehicle side (50-60%) vs (80-90%).
Using your method of comparing the fuel cell stack efficiency with combined cycle generation, yes the fuel cell is the same, but obviously hydrogen loses very badly on the generation vs BEV vehicle efficiency.
In the end, the BEV wins 2-3x as efficient with electrolysis and 1.2x-1.5x for steam reformation vs combined cycle depending on how the hydrogen is transported. Where the BEV loses is in non-combined cycle plants, but not too much because very few HFCVs hit 50-60% efficiency.
If they can get HFCVs drastically down in price (at least equal to BEVs) then they become a lot more appealing, even with the infrastructure issues. But so far there's no indication that's happening anytime soon (10-20 yrs as they say?) so I'm putting most of my bets on BEVs and hope HFCVs don't impede the process.
Carney 3:00PM (2/27/2009)
noz, I understand perfectly well that progress and technological can occur. That's one reason I support electric vehicles and fusion power plants as a long term solution. That's one reason I support the space program, even human colonization of other worlds such as Mars, and even terraforming. None of these violate laws of physics or involve assuming that inherent properties of any elements can be changed or ignored.
However I also realize when some things are inherently impractical and fatally flawed. You've been so dazzled by one or two aspects of hydrogen that you simply treat its drawbacks as temporary when they are not - they are inherent in the very nature of hydrogen itself.
Chris M 12:05AM (2/28/2009)
Yes, Noz, the use of metal hydrides or borohydrides or other H2 absorbents does dramatically reduce the pressure needed for H2 storage without requiring cryogentic cooling, but there are drawbacks. absorbent storage also dramatically increases the weight, as the absorbent weighs much more than the H2 it carries, eliminating the low weight energy density of H2. It increases the cost, especially for metal hydrides.
It can also make for very slow fill times, as that absorbent produces heat when it absorbs H2, thus must be cooled while refilling. Some think, "Oh, well, we'll just pour it in to a tank like sand", but don't realize that doing that would contaminate the H2 with air, which would lead to a damaging fire if that air gets on the wrong side of the fuel cell (remember, platinum has been used as a catalytic igniter for H2 and other fuels).
While platinum is the most expensive component of a fuel cell, and a 50% reduction in platinum is substantial, there are other costly materials involved, and the price is still far from affordable.
When H2 storage and H2 fuel cells reach affordable levels, then we can get excited. Until then, lets concentrate on what is affordable and practical now.
Noz 4:02AM (2/28/2009)
New methods of storing are already being studied that allow the H2 to be contained in tiny pellets able to be poured into fuel tanks and activated when needed. Such issues are being resolved.
We can't stop the research because it's unaffordable. If that were to happen, we'd have never gotten anything done in past innovative ventures that were absurdly expensive.
We've already talked about this issue and we've pretty much concurred that feasible time-lines will be further down the road for H2. Nothing wrong with trying to find interim solutions but to drop other research is a very bad idea.
Noz 4:05AM (2/28/2009)
Carney....you're dazzled by alcohol fuels...thinking they don't pollute. When you get a grip on reality regarding that issue, come back to us.
Laws of physics are not being broken here...it's a matter of breakthroughs in material science. It may not happen for a while, but it will take place whether you want to admit it or not.
dumbass 7:06PM (3/12/2009)
Hydrogen is not possible. Read Hype about Hydrogen. A hydrogen car costs 1 million.
Second, where's the infrastructure.
Third, EVs are more efficient than hydrogen.
Fourth you'll be paying 3 times more for hydrogen than gasoline while electricity is one-fifth of gasoline.
The electric grid can handle at least a million cars before any problems occur. Considering only 3% of car sales are hybrids, electric cars will take off slowly and while demand becomes clear, more energy will be made for them. So it'll still be a while ahead before we routinely see electric cars but there is no grid issue today. There might be in 5 to 10 years but by then there will be a solution.
Some people are so brainwashed or addicted to bad gas habits that they can't let go of putting a liquid fuel into their vehicles.
Reply
SteveCT 7:18PM (3/01/2009)
Noz:
The real problem with hydrogen is not any one issue but the fact that several advancements need to be made to make it viable, among which are:
- generating hydrogen efficiently (though some recent research indicates this may soon be a reality)
- efficient transport and/or storage of hydrogen (I haven't heard of the advancement you're citing, but it's certainly possible)
- efficient use of hydrogen (not currently possible; 60% is the best fuel cells get)
- low-cost fuel cells (there is currently no solution in sight here)
- improving fuel cell lifetime (current fuel cells, if used in cars, would last only about 3 years for the average driver)
- safety (the public is stupid and hydrogen is extremely dangerous; not a good combination)
- infrastructure (people will build refueling stations only when the cars exist, and the cars will only sell when there are refueling stations available; by contrast electricity is available in nearly every home in America)
Until most or all of those are accomplished, fuel cells will remain inferior to BEVs (never mind ER-EVs).
Reply
Noz 9:27PM (3/01/2009)
Steve,
I agree. Those need to be solved. But what others are saying is not the same as what I am saying in regards to H2 usage.
I've always maintained that H2 fuels will be used for larger, heavier transports before they are used for using cars. This has always been the case with any new and emerging technology. The commercial and governmental entities always get their hands of these things first and then it trickles down.
EV's will come before H2 for small scale vehicles and devices...not doubt about that. But the future will be one of both. Let's hope biofuels don't catch on because they will only create a diversion and do not solve most if the environmental issues contrary to what some here constantly pump.